On Sunday 05 December 2010 16:18:49 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On 05-12-2010 10:15, Dominik Haumann wrote: > > On Sunday, 5. December 2010, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:26:52AM +0000, Tom Albers wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Andreas Pakulat <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Ian, I'm not sure wether you're aware of the previous > >>>>> discussions about this or not, but the kate devs would like to > >>>>> remove at least the > >>>>> kate-dir from kdelibs when it moves to git (as kate has a separate > >>>>> repository with ktexteditor-interfaces, katepart, kwrite and > >>>>> kate-the-editor). They'd also like to move out the ktexteditor > >>>>> interfaces so they don't have to keep both in synch, but IIRC > >>>>> there's > >>>>> been close to no comments about that from the release team. > >>> > >>> Removing stuff from kdelibs sounds like bic. > >> > >> no. this is solely a distribution/packaging problem. > > If you start releasing it on a different tarball. If the release team > adds it to the kdelibs tarball, then it should be ok - for building > releases. > > > Right, we are talking about libktexteditor.so. Where it comes from does > > not matter at all. And given that we want to continue to stick with the > > KDE SC release schedules, nothing changes for the user. > > Not quite. There's the issue of dependencies. If you move it to another > module you may risk creating a circular dependency issue. The module you > move it to can't have a dependency on any module that depends on > libktexteditor. As the kate repo only depends on kdelibs, I guess that would be no problem.
Greetings Christoph _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
