El Dimarts, 17 de març de 2015, a les 09:16:50, Kevin Ottens va escriure: > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 08:21:22 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > On Monday 16 March 2015 23:16:51 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > We have KPackage depending on kdoctools but since it's optional we > > > pretend > > > it's not a real dependency and call KPackage tier2 > > > > > > What's in it for us other than lying to ourselves? What's so bad about > > > KPackage being tier 3? > > > > > > It'd still have only 3 dependencies and be totally usable, no? > > > > Maybe it needs to document both: > > * without optional packages it's tier 2 > > * with optional packages it's tier 3 > > > > I can imagine that this will be interesting for more frameworks where it > > could be that depending on which platform we run on it's a different tier > > (kglobalaccel is currently tier 1 for non-X11, but tier3 on X11). > > I'd be concerned about the complexity of that though. It needs to be > communicable to the outside. > > Now perhaps it's a question of "what's needed to get it to build and be > usable on all platforms". I'm not sure that kdoctools is part of those > requirements. It's "just" to get manpages generated.
The problem is that "usable" is an ambiguous by definition, while following the dependency chain is quite clear. Albert > > IOW, not having kdoctools doesn't prevent you to build something on top of > kpackage and run it while not having KWindowsSystem breaks kglobalaccel on > some platforms. > > Regards. _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
