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

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Proposal: New module "kdepimlibs"
From:       Allen Winter <winter () kde ! org>
Date:       2006-04-21 13:12:38
Message-ID: 200604210912.39659.winter () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 21 April 2006 08:31, Volker Krause wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 22:27, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 17:58, Allen Winter wrote:
> > > If possible, I'd like to be able to keep the kdelibs installed from my
> > > distro. Then only build/install my own kdepimlibs and kdepim for
> > > development. I hope we can keep this policy.
> >
> > Yes, in principle I also think it will be helpful to keep this. But it
> > probably does not make much sense to try this for 4.0 and maybe still not
> > for 4.1. Let's see.
> >
> > > Cornelius:  is the final decision up to the TWG?
> >
> > As things seem to work now, the TWG isn't really into decisions, so I guess
> > it's up to those doing the work. If we KDE PIM people agree to do it and
> > there are no strong objections from the people concerned with kdelibs, it
> > probably just needs somebody to go forward and move the code.
> 
> IMHO we should try to fix the issues (missing BIC prevention, licensing, 
> dependencies, etc.) first before we create a new module. Apart from that it's 
> probably just a matter of a few svn commands and a bit of cmake code, the 
> really crucial thing is the changed dependency-policy anyway.
> 
I was thinking about starting a local sandbox kdepimlibs module today.
Then commit it once we made a final decision.  But you convinced me not to do that.

Can we start a concrete list of stuff we should do in the current kdepim then?

What steps are needed to implement "missing BIC prevention"?

What licensing issues are there?

The dependencies are a mess.  But, if we don't make a kdepimlibs modules, what
can we do to simplify the dependencies?

> > I still think that it would be great, if the TWG would be involved in
> > coming to and documenting an agreement, so that it's a bit better defined
> > what's happening.
> 
> Since allowing dependecies to another module is a quite big change which 
> affects many app developers, I think it's important to have this offically 
> confirmed by the TWG.
> 
I sorta think so too.  Not in the way of a "you may do such-and-such" but rather
more of a "we think this is the right approach that will solve the following set of problems
we've had in the past".

-- 
Let's Keep the Political Talk Out of KDE PLEASE
_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]