Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:41:30PM +0200, Bor Kraljič wrote:
> On 24. MES 2011 12:31:43 Treeve Jelbert wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 August 2011 23:40:02 Jaka Kranjc wrote:
> > > We should also rename the old kde spells to kde3 and the kde4 to plain 
> > > kde
> > > (later) — upstream is already dreaming about kde5, so it is best to 
> > > lose the
> > > version suffix for the latest branch or we'll rerun into this issue each
> > > major release.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think that the only clean way of improving things like this is a to 
> > have a 
> > separate KDE grimoire, with branches for KDE3, KDE4, ...
> > I am not sure where QT should go in this situation.
> > 
> > Likewise for GNOME.
> Well I think kde3 and kde4 should be in separated grimoires. This way we 
> people will just add that 
> grimoire that they want and we can use same spell names. Right?
> 
> However there was discussion about spliting main grimoire. But somehow we 
> didn't get far with that. But 
> perhaps splitting kde4 from main grimoire is a good start. It wouldn't be 
> easy. But that would really be the 
> cleanest way. 
> 
> Not sure if sorcery is ready. Should we move all spells that depend on 
> kdelibs4 into new grimoire? I don't 
> think that is a good idea. How ever if you cast such spell from main 
> grimoire and don't have kde4 grimoire 
> you could be having problems. 

Mea Culpa. I really should have got the split grimoire discussion going
earlier, but I've been insanely busy the past months and haven't had the
time to sort out the ideas I have and properly put them together. There
are various caveats with splitting grimoires, and topical grimoires like
ones for KDE or gnome may not be the best ideas for the reasons you
already identified.

I promise to get my ideas out to the mailing list this week.

Remko.

Attachment: pgpYwB2lLkynU.pgp
Description: PGP signature