On 13 July 2012 10:11, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote: > On Friday 13 July 2012 Jul, C. Boemann wrote: >> On Friday 13 July 2012 08:45:13 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: >> > On Friday 13 Jul 2012, you wrote: >> > > Flexibility is a +1, but one -1 (besides adding further complexity to >> > > cmake files) is that these build profiles should only be used for >> > > custom builds. We don't want stripped-down Word in the popular >> > > distros, for example, not being able to handle the Biblio feature. >> > >> > You really don't have to worry about distributions, packagers will package >> > with every optional dependency as possible, and as long as they are listed >> > at the end of the configuration step, they will notice them and include >> > them. This is why we often get the complain that Calligra installation is >> > bloated. Personnaly, I think it is ok. >> > >> > However I thought we were in agreement that we wanted to make it possible >> > to create very lightweight custom build of calligra with as few >> > dependencies as possible. >> > >> > In any case, new hard dependencies need to be discussed and announced on >> > the mailing list in advance. >> uhm there was a review request for about a week > > Yeah, I saw that request. But that's not the same same as writing a mail to > the mailing list announcing extra dependencies. I saw the request, but I was > blindsided by it as well.
It was announced and put as RFC on 3rd July: http://lists.kde.org/?l=calligra-devel&m=134135216226096&w=1 At that time involved developers exchanged our concerns, cleared up, and the still was in a form of idea. 4 days after it materialized as review request. As you see in my original reply I provided data on what most users already have on their systems: they have libsqlite almost for sure, and will have to keep ICU lib in the near future. I would not exaggerate the dependency aspect before we formulate the demand of lightness (maybe with help of users and statistics). Before that the demand looks for me a bit like the demands of dropping dependencies on KDElibs and stay 100% Qt-only (this is popular request from time to time in comments whenever we announce another Calligra version). I hear that Bibliography is a tier-1 feature of ODF and ODF is core functionality. What's in ODF specs influence our architecture, we have rarely discussions on skipping some ODF parts. I see a need to be more active when it comes to features out of scope of ODF, such as higher-level integration (and data handling, topic which was skipped in the final ODF 1.1 for purpose). Otherwise, please let's find convincing cases, not corner-cases, when given user group intentionally degrades functionality this way on a desktop system. Sure splitting everything to plugins is possible. The question is not 'how' but 'why' and 'what'. I am afraid the voices demanding fragmentation of the packages of are the loudest ones, but not represent real user base. Personally I feel we're loosing some energy (which would be more utilized for Calligra Engine works?). Even if we look at the potential concerns, I think both reasons are at most equal: 1. size of dependencies 2. number of packages that form dependencies (even if just recommended/optional) I understand the demand boud expressed is to decrease 1. and increase 2. I have almost nothing against extending README.PACKAGERS to suggest moving libcalligradb to extra recommended package that will be used only when needed. Almost nothing, with exception of the point 2. above. I am afraid the more _pedantry_ lies in README.PACKAGERS recommendations, more chances are that some distros will ignore that altogether and can understand them. -- regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek Kexi & Calligra & KDE | http://calligra.org/kexi | http://kde.org Qt Certified Specialist | http://qt-project.org http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
