https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361954
steveL <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
--- Comment #7 from steveL <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> ---
> When looking at the list of bugs in our screen management tools, the last
> thing I
> want to see is more bug-reports that I have to sift through because some
> packager or user built their libkscreen without wayland support. This time is
> much better spent on the current set of bugs. I'm sure that's something we all
> can agree on.
Regretfully, I cannot. The whole point of KF/Plasma is to be more modular, not
less, in aid of KDE's sponsored purpose as a showcase for Qt.
As such, inverted coupling like this, to wit insisting on wayland support from
the platform in question, is contrary to the aims of the overall project, and
the clear direction set by core developers for the design.
Even were it not, inverted coupling is ALWAYS a no-no, apart from the
occasional exception for OS-vendor platform-specific implementation of a
standard (at the level of using an implementation-defined path for the sh
interpreter.)
WRT "lists of bugs" are you speaking as a bug-wrangler, or a developer?
No-one wants to add unnecessary work, but this appears to be an issue with
bug-wrangling support, which is orthogonal to architectural goals for the SC.
Stating that the split can only "be done in the binary packages" can in no way
be seen as modularity at the source level.
Luke's patch is at: http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/no-kwayland.patch
Comment or review, before we apply and use it downstream, would be most
appreciated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
