Hey, On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Christoph Cullmann <cullm...@absint.com> wrote:
> > I hope I didn't upset anybody, just got a bit frustrated by the current > state of > the art. Alone how many patches for all our stuff are floating around in > the net > to make it somehow buildable instead of some solution inside frameworks > made > me really sad :/ And the amount of work that went into patching Qt to > behave like > on Linux on non-linux makes me even more sad, given the effort of the > people > at the Qt Company to make Qt more native and attractive for these > platforms. > Just for the record, I'm not upset about the KNotification change, I just don't think it's a correct one. That said, I very much support the idea of allowing to build in an essentials-only way. I'm not entirely sure about which approach (per framework or global) is better though. I tend to agree about having per-framework switches and let it up to the integrator to decide what is wanted/needed (in API/ABI limits of course). On the other hand, I can see that going through ~60+ frameworks, reading all the options and setting many of them manually, can be quite tiresome. But as long as specifying such flag is explicit and not on-by-default, I'm happy to look in KNotification framework and see what all can be made non-essential. One other thing that came to my mind, albeit a bit too soon, is the framework's tier. Let's say that in the essentials-only build the tier is actually one or two level above its normal tier; should that be reflected somehow somewhere? Or would tiers just loose their meanings then? Cheers -- Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
