On 2015-10-13, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > I'm not sure whether it's the best solution. The problem you try to fix with > it is distros breaking packaging. I agree with Martin K that this is a huge > problem and that it will happen - since the automation of packages I also > experienced that nobody looks at the output of optional dependencies and the > packaging breaks.
I do think that such packagers should be slapped around with a large trout. Or something. > But I'm not sure how this could be done. Anyway, long story short: I think we > need the other way around. It should be optional by default, but should be > turned into stricter requirements on the linux distro case. There is also another angle to the dependencies. What dependencies can be enabled/disabled without requiring changes to users of the library. Or put it another way. Is the enabling/disabling of a given feature ABI and API compatible. I do think that for features that doesn't impact the API/ABI we should make it very easy to enable/disable them. Like based on having things present on the system or not. But for things that affects the API/ABI of the library, people should be explicit about it. /Sune _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel