[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Proposal: New module "kdepimlibs"
From:       Volker Krause <volker.krause () rwth-aachen ! de>
Date:       2006-05-04 16:17:41
Message-ID: 200605041817.51756.volker.krause () rwth-aachen ! de
[Download RAW message or body]


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 seen
> > any objections.

There is some formal stuff regarding the policy which is currently sorted out 
(see below).

Beside from this there are a few dependency and licensing problems. Some have 
already been solved, the following issues are still open:
- libkmime is GPL-licensed, but since libkcal no longer depends on it we can 
move it at a later point if necessary
- libkcal dependency to ktnef (can be inverted to ktnef depending on libkcal)
- libemailfunctions (a set of four classes, one seems unused, three have 
nothing to do with emails) needs to be dissolved
- interfaces/kimproxy and interfaces/ktexteditor depend on libkabc, ie. 
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 version
> numbers.
[...]

Allen is working on an updated version of the policy document to clarify these 
things.

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

regards
Volker

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]