--nextPart1185251.EcfEKK9a0S
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 04 May 2006 12:28, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Thursday, 4. May 2006 03:42, Matt Rogers wrote:
> > Ok, so I'm totally convinced this is a good idea now. When's it going to
> > happen and do I need to do something to help move it along? I've not se=
en
> > any objections.

There is some formal stuff regarding the policy which is currently sorted o=
ut=20
(see below).

Beside from this there are a few dependency and licensing problems. Some ha=
ve=20
already been solved, the following issues are still open:
=2D libkmime is GPL-licensed, but since libkcal no longer depends on it we =
can=20
move it at a later point if necessary
=2D libkcal dependency to ktnef (can be inverted to ktnef depending on libk=
cal)
=2D libemailfunctions (a set of four classes, one seems unused, three have=
=20
nothing to do with emails) needs to be dissolved
=2D interfaces/kimproxy and interfaces/ktexteditor depend on libkabc, ie.=20
libkabc can't just be moved out of kdelibs

Nothing really problematic, but needs to be done.

> I've had some questions for clarifications, which remained unanswered so
> far, because out of bounds release schemes tend to collide with KDE versi=
on
> numbers.
[...]

Allen is working on an updated version of the policy document to clarify th=
ese=20
things.

The part about diffrent release schedules has been removed, I don't think i=
t=20
will be necessary (this was discussed for kdepim several times in the past=
=20
but never really used). Cornelius, you brought this up, is there any case=20
where this would be needed?

regards
Volker

--nextPart1185251.EcfEKK9a0S
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEWikvf5bM1k0S0kcRAufZAJ0Si8/pbzjD3j2QWxWJyz7IfrdrxQCfTvMm
yjuLx2z6OR4Z6b/WZm4RnA8=
=Dq+C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1185251.EcfEKK9a0S--