[Pkg-kde-extras] Re: DISCUSS: split digikam into digikam and
tonio at ubuntu.com
Fri Jan 19 22:39:44 UTC 2007
The idea of splitting the package comes from Kubuntu.
Indeed, we wanted to provide Digikam to our users, but we already used
Gwenview as default imge viewer, and also wanted to avoid duplication, as
well as earning space on the cd.
I believe Achim just did the same in debian in order to merge the changes, so
that he can easilly maintain both, as his knowledge in the specifics of
digikam is way better than mine.
In the Debian logic, I must say I perfectly understand that it causes a
debate, as the cd image size or functionnality duplication isn't to be
considered in your case.
I wouldn't see any issue in maintaining that package appart from debian, as
Kubuntu and Debian can have on specific point different requirement/visions,
as long as we sync the patches and share debug infos as we do with Achim
But technically, Digikam is perfectly working without showfoto, while the
oppisite isn't true, which is the reason showfoto is depending on digikam.
We will probably not change our mind for Kubuntu now, as the available size on
the cd is now very very little and we are fine with that packaging, so it's
up to kde-extras to decide what to do :
- merge our changes for easy collaboration
- don't merge them since different distros includes different
requirement/expectations, but stay linked concerning patches
Have a nice day !
On Friday 19 January 2007 15:22:45 you wrote:
> * Merging Kubuntu change: split digikam into digikam and showfoto
> packages. Thx to Anthony Mercatante <tonio at ubuntu.com>
> Anthony, Achim,
> I'm not sure I'm confortable with splitting digikam into digikam and
> Whilst, showfoto is a useful application viewer in its own right and could
> stand alone as a image viewer, arn't we just making more package bloat by
> splitting it off into its own package. What are the advantages we are
> trying to archive?
> I don't think upstream are about to split showfoto off into a separate
> tarball and development path.
> Also if it does split then digikam needs to Depend on it and things like
> the showfoto manpage also need to go across which haven't been brought
> across in svn.debian.
> I can only see very limited cases where a user is going to have showfoto
> installed and not want digikam, I don't think this justifies the split.
> Also are we sure there are no dependencies between the two?
> Ie, is libdigikam needed, or any of the kio_digikam* needed by showfoto?
> In fact in svn.debian showfoto is shown as Depends on digikam, so if the
> two are always installed together, then why split them?
> If we want to bring attention to the fact that showfoto is different and
> available, then why not include an additional paragraph in the description
> of digikam?
More information about the pkg-kde-extras