> On July 11, 2014, 9:58 p.m., Christian David wrote: > > Is this only used until the pim libs are KF5 ready? Because I think this > > function is so important that it justifies having the pim libs a obligatory > > dependency. There will be many bug reports if a package maintainer forgets > > to compile with kdepimlibs. > > Cristian Oneț wrote: > No, I would like to see this as a permanent change. I'm not that sure > about which of the features are so important that they must be a mandatory > dependency. I like the idea of having the freedom to build without kdepimlibs > if necessary and if that can be obtained easily why not have it? I'm not > sugesting that packagers should do this but for example in source based > distributions users would be able to have a choice, which is nice. > > Alvaro Soliverez wrote: > I'm against this being a permanent change. It affects how schedules are > handled, which impacts all over the application. > And I certainly don't want to track down a bug reported by an unsupecting > user just to figure out later a packager left the dependency out because kde > pim libs was "too big". > > Cristian Oneț wrote: > I hate to disagree but I don't see it that way. The only effect to the > way schedules are handled is that processing dates are not obtained from the > holliday region thus the "old" (and documented) behavior of considering only > weekends as non-processing days will be in effect. > > If you ask me is this feature really that crucial that we should make > everyone build kdepimlibs in oder to use kmymoney I would say no. Again, I'm > not removing the feature, just making it optional. > > The feature isn't even documented so I'm not sure if we would start > receiving bug reports about it. But just to be on the safe side we could > finish the feature in main.cpp:69 which would provide a list of optional > features that were built (or found as plugins) in the about data. > > If it's something I've learned from and appreacited in the KF5 model is > that the take everything or leave it approach is wrong. Think about it, > kdepimlibs has 22 libraries plus their dependecies , of which we only use 4 > (QGpgme, KHolidays, PIMIdentities, Akonadi) for pretty slim features. Knowing > this wouldn't it be wiser to allow those who don't need those features to be > able to use the application without these dependencies?
Cristian, I am very much in favour for what you're stating here. This is something which one wouldn't be too worried about on Linux, but on OSX as on Windows in your case it is a real show-stopper to be forced into having far too many dependencies for seemingly little functionality gain. Thus, I also vote for making things optional! - Marko ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119234/#review62153 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 11, 2014, 9:58 p.m., Cristian Oneț wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119234/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 11, 2014, 9:58 p.m.) > > > Review request for KMymoney. > > > Repository: kmymoney > > > Description > ------- > > If KDE PIM libraries will not be found during configuration all days will be > considered processing days. Note that this review request dependes on the > cmake changes in https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119207/ > > > Diffs > ----- > > kmymoney/dialogs/settings/ksettingsschedules.cpp 96bfb84 > kmymoney/kmymoney.cpp 687187a > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119234/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Build and run the application with and without HAVE_KDEPIMLIBS defined. > > > Thanks, > > Cristian Oneț > >
_______________________________________________ KMyMoney-devel mailing list KMyMoney-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
