| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News)Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News)Posted Nov 26, 2009 10:35 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) by aseigo Parent article: Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) aseigo wrote: [P]eople get confused about things like [...] "can I use Digikam on $OTHER_PLATFORM or do i have to use the KDE workspace?" Just after I mused in the "Giving up the GIMP..." article comments about using Digikam in Gnome...
(Log in to post comments)
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 26, 2009 20:04 UTC (Thu) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link]
hehe; syncronicity at work, my friend! ;)
and yes, as people consider those kinds of things already, very naturally, we figured it was time our communication matched that reality and even helped it along rather than pretend that's not how it is.
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 27, 2009 8:25 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
Just out of interest (and as I am sadly not a DE specialist), what does Digikam (probably...) depend on the KDE libraries for? Excluding Qt of course, as it is clear what it uses that for. I'm just wondering how much would need to be changed for it to use the Gnome libraries in combination with Qt instead of KDElibs and Qt. As a configuration option of course :) (Or even better, cross-DE wrapper libraries.)
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 27, 2009 12:49 UTC (Fri) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
I am not a Digikam expert either, but the usual suspects are things like
config framework [1], I/O framework (for remote access and maybe thumbnail creation), plugin discovery [2], hardware access [3] (e.g. detection of cameras), metadata framework, semantic data integration (e.g. rating, tagging).
> Or even better, cross-DE wrapper libraries.
Fun fact is that the KDE libraries are often such wrapper libraries,
[1] http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Using_KConf...
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 27, 2009 13:01 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Fun fact is that the KDE libraries are often such wrapper libraries
Ahem, yes, as in what Aaron was actually saying (maybe I should read the comments I reply to better?). So perhaps all that would be needed would be a bit of work to reduce the size of the dependency (230MB in Ubuntu Karmic IIRC).
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 28, 2009 15:33 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
so much? that's crazy, you can get a basic kopete upon kde-libs including
all dependencies AND Xorg AND drivers, as can be seen a little up in this thread, for about 130 MB! Something is wrong in ubuntu, unless you wanted to install all of the KDE software compilation...
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 28, 2009 18:56 UTC (Sat) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
The following is Ubuntu's take on digikam. Without the --no-install-recommends, it also pulls in dolphin, khelpcenter and (via kipi-plugins) konqueror, adding another 35Mb when all is said and done. As I said, work might be needed to clean up the dependencies :) I don't think that they have seriously considered using KDE software components without KDE as a whole yet.
$ sudo apt-get install digikam --no-install-recommends
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 29, 2009 8:42 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
yes, there are certainly a few things there which aren't needed. And there
is a lot there which isn't part of the KDE platform but part of the lower stack. Xine, soprano, libexiv, boost and Akonadi come to mind.
But anyway - I don't see why any of this makes digikam any less standing on
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 29, 2009 9:49 UTC (Sun) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> But anyway - I don't see why any of this makes digikam any less standing on its own?
My question is more whether the Ubuntu package of Digikam (subtle difference there!) stands on its own. And the discussion of reducing the total dependency size (and that didn't include Qt either, which I have installed for VirtualBox) comes from the original idea that Digikam might be a good alternative to F-Spot, with its Mono dependency (both large in megabytes and charged politically) in the default Ubuntu install. In this context it does make sense to keep the size in megabytes of the Digikam dependencies as small as they can reasonably be.
It is not definitely not NIH - although to tell the truth, I don't think that it is NIH in the cases of Firefox and Oo.o either; they just both arrived from the proprietary world, where you don't have the luxury of FOSS-style dependencies.
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 29, 2009 10:13 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Well, the dependencies are big if you don't run anything yet. The KDE
Platform IS big, offers a lot of features. Digikam does. I guess that is indeed a disadvantage, having a 3.5 mb download would be better. But it's not a huge issue, right?
I can see why somebody wouldn't want to use F-spot - mono being evil (or
I just hope the dependencies aren't a real reason not to use digikam or
Repositioning the KDE Brand (KDE.News) Posted Nov 29, 2009 21:32 UTC (Sun) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Of course I'd rather see ppl who want to use Digikam and other KDE apps because they're good ;-)
See http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/22708/ for my attempt at getting something moving here. Feel free to promote it a bit and pass the link around to like-minded people if you like it (or tell me why not if you don't :). I think it would be great if good applications were not held back by being associated with the "other desktop", and I think this would be a good chance to break down some of the walls in people's minds.
|
|
||||||||||||