Re: Fwd: Re: Calligra translations are enabled

> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:30:46 +0100
> From: Cyrille Berger Skott
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Calligra translations are enabled
>
> On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>> I think we need a better solution here. All KDE applications should be
>> co-
>> installable without conflicts.
> If you have a good solution, I would be more than happy to hear it.

Why would two separate office suites not be compatible? One office suite
uses certain libraries and another office suite uses different ones. So
what!? Forgive my ignorance, because I don't know what all the issues are.
I'm new here, and have been holding back on contributing, mostly because I
don't know which project I'm supposed to help with; Project A, B or 6 of
9.
All this drama doesn't help either.

> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:10:03 +0100
> From: Jaroslaw Staniek
> There're more problem than just application names and plugins.
> For example, the question is which application opens files for, say,
> ODT mimetype?
> We have no simple one-click solution for typical user.

Naturally.

> I believe many users would see installing calligra 2.4 as upgrade from
> koffice 2.3.
> Thus setting recommendation for uninstallation of koffice before
> installation of calligra would be benefcial for most of the users.
> When we agree on having conflicting packages, users at least will be
> aware that the apps won't coexist properly.

Again, I'm not sure why two separate suites can't co-exist. I can only
guess there is a new bunch of libraries that are an upgrade to the old
libraries and the calls and such are now incompatible. Nothing like making
things backward compatible. Who would ever want that?

> There's also a question if the desire "All KDE applications should be
> co-installable without conflicts." is realistic and if this is the

I would have to say, that if KDE doesn't give a darn about compatibility
between KDE apps it's time to switch to a DM that does. Holy Cow! KDE apps
not co-installable without conflicts! Where's the door out of this crazy
house! Holy Hell, I might just as well install Windows!!!!!!!!
Now I realize you can't control all the people writing KDE based apps, but
if it's possible to write a KDE app that conflicts with any part of KDE,
given the same versioning then I'd say that's a HUGE design flaw in KDE!
It's a Desktop Manager, and I certainly expect it to actually manage! If a
KDE app conflicts with other parts of installed KDE it should not be
installable. Period!

> an issue at all? Isn't it a task for distros to resolve?

No this is a task for the developer to solve. Certainly there comes a time
to break backward compatibility, but making a fork doesn't seem to be a
good reason for that, unless you're planning on adding functionality that
can only happen by breaking backward compatibility. Like the switch from
KDE3 to KDE4. Not, that I'm saying that was (or was not) a necessary
thing, but it's done. If one is developing for oneself, then none of this
is an issue, but it one is writing for the masses, consideration for the
masses should be considered a requisite.

I agree with everything Cornelius Schuchmacher said.

>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:25:17 +0100
> From: Cyrille Berger Skott
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Calligra translations are enabled
>
> On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>> Technically it's easy to avoid it by renaming conflicting files. It is
>> some  work, but certainly possible.
> Yes but it is (a lot) work that we, in calligra, are not willing to do,
> for
> the simple reason is that we don't think it is worth the effort.
Wow, not worth the effort? I'd agree renaming everything might be a lot of
work, but still not sure why it is causing a conflict. Can't the Calligra
2.4 libraries simply be an upgrade to the KOffice 2.3 libraries?

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:41:23 +0100
> From: Jaroslaw Staniek
>
>> Technically it's easy to avoid it by renaming conflicting files. It is
>> some
>> work, but certainly possible.
>
> Example:
> Why would we rename, say kexi_version.h?
> It will appear both in KOffice 2.3 and Calligra 2.4.
> Or any kexi library?
> If there exists KOffice 2.4, it will be the first version without Kexi
> (this the conflict will be removed, but this is a side effect).

I guess I'm still not seeing the conflict. Ok, so Calligra 2.4 and KOffice
2.3 will use the same libraries? The conflict is what? Two applications
aren't allowed to use the same libraries? Or are you planning on switching
everything up for Calligra 2.4? Or is it too hard to allow for backward
compatibility for just Calligra 2.4 with KOffice 2.3?
Well, I'm new here, so I'm probably missing something obvious to others.
Still, I always try to keep my libraries of code compatible for as long as
possible. It saves me the headache of clients getting pissed when they
have to upgrade everything I've written just for some new features of one
application they've purchased.

Sorry about the length!

Brian