On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Kevin Ottens <er...@kde.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wednesday 14 October 2015 21:20:33 Christoph Cullmann wrote: >> Therefore my goal for frameworks is to make them actually as easy usable >> for people in that situation. We advertise that a lot everywhere but at the >> moment that is just not true beside for really simple stuff like "karchive". > > Just to put some historical perspective into this particular point. It *is* > true, but for tier 1 and tier 2 frameworks only. That's why the dependency > rules of the tier system were designed the way they are. > > So if you are "people in that situation" as described by Christoph in his > email: stay away from anything which is above tier 2 or make it an optional > dependency. You still have more than 30 frameworks to pick from for the other > ones YMMV, you should be warned headaches might or might not be ahead with > tier 3. > > If you are someone working on a given framework and you are just content of > having it in KF5's tier 3, but did no refactoring or API work to get it to > tier 2 or tier 1: you're missing the point of KF5's tier and type > organization. You are also prematurely shrinking its potential user base and > that should bother you, really. > > If you remember the talk I gave back in the days about KF5, I mentioned that > the tier and type matrix is also a *maturity* system. It is our responsibility > to push the frameworks down the stack as much as possible. Since then, I see > lots of frameworks appearing, I don't see many of them lowering their tier... > > Regards.
Would it make sense then to define as part of the tier only the mandatory dependencies? Then the variable could be, instead of what Christoph proposed, something like KDE_ENFORCE_ALL_FRAMEWORKS. Aleix _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
