Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
måndagen den 30 september 2002 11.28 skrev Ben Burton:
> Well clearly the more critical places where the packages differ is with
> kdelibs/etc; these core packages are not my responsibility and I guess if
> there's coordination involved it'll need to be between you and calc.
Yes, since I thought that the changes will improve the packaging structure,
and give less problems in the long run. The monolithic kdelibs I think is a
problem. Particularly if you want to install a single application on a system
that otherwise run another version of KDE, or that is not running KDE at all.
The same breaking up into smaller parts has already been done with the "arts"
package.
> As for the modules I maintain that you've provided your debian/ for, there
> seem to be some good ideas, some design decisions that I disagree with,
> some removal of components to support non-KDE users (eg., xpms, HTML docs),
> some issues of purely personal taste and some changes that I already have
> in CVS in different forms (presumably made after you branched from CVS).
I removed the HTML docs just since they take so long time to generate on my
machine, and I figured it was no use generating them at this stage, where I
rebuild quite often. They could easily be put back for all packages. It is
really not a big issue at this point.
The xpms? I don't consciously omitted any xpms. It is not working properly
then. The should be there. Which docs are missing?
Otherwise I changed some package names, to have the same kind of name all over
KDE, to avoid clashes, and for other reasons. For example, the devel packages
on debian often does not have the so number in the package name, since they
can't co-exist from different versions. kdelibs-dev belongs to kdelibs, and
not to kdelibs4. The libraries in kdelibs4 does not have so-number 4, does
not belong to KDE4, and that name can be quite misleading. I have made some
conscious decisions of that kind.
To have one personal taste in one debian KDE module, and another in another, I
think is a bad thing. You guys have not coordinated your personal tastes in
the past. So I provided one personal taste for the whole thing. You can of
course agree on another personal taste, but then do it.
> Though
> please take a look in CVS first as opposed to listing changes from the
> point at which you branched, since there have been some significant updates
> in CVS since then.
I have looked quite a lot on your stuff, and done the same for all KDE
modules, without further deeper investigation, assuming you are doing the
correct thing. I just sometimes can't keep up.
-- Karolina
Reply to: