From kde-core-devel  Fri Sep 29 14:19:48 2006
From: Boudewijn Rempt <boud () valdyas ! org>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:19:48 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Using scripting languages for KDE4 main modules
Message-Id: <200609291619.50727.boud () valdyas ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=115953960025157
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart5353194.RqhUfNrWMW"

--nextPart5353194.RqhUfNrWMW
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday 29 September 2006 16:10, Leo Savernik wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. September 2006 16:07 schrieb Albert Astals Cid:
> > Could we get a clear "Yes"?
>
> Could we also determine that at least a "usable basic distribution" of KDE
> stays buildable and usable without any need for language bindings other
> than C/C++/kjsembed?

Why? What's the the good of that? With the list you give below you're not=20
going to notice the extra megabytes a Python interpreter + bindings bring=20
with them.=20

> With "usable basic distribution" I think of a KDE installation consisting
> of kdelibs, kdepimlib, konqueror, kcontrol, kate, kdevelop, kontact, kpdf
> (whatever it'll be called in KDE4), kview/kuickshow (whatever the common
> successor will be called), kopete, koffice, and other applications that
> make a KDE desktop useful.

In any case, while not absolutely depending on it, KOffice makes good use o=
f=20
Python and Ruby already.

=2D-=20
Boudewijn Rempt=20
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi

--nextPart5353194.RqhUfNrWMW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFHSuGdaCcgCmN5d8RAn2OAJ9RvT6iFf9htV7HoKPHBmXS3n+kVACfdc03
ILJQpQ9ZyuhMkN8aO0N3ToE=
=p6Sr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart5353194.RqhUfNrWMW--