On Saturday 29 January 2011 14:04:42 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > So this is why i think it's a no go, and why opossed ages ago already. > > > > Ok, so let's work on the issues, instead of declining it. Since > > KTextEditor remains in kdelibs, why is kate 'special'? Why can't we put > > it in extragear/utils ? > > As far as I understood Cristoph idea was have a kate repo somewhere but on > release stage Dirk would distribute the things as they are distributed now, > e.g. katepart would end in kdelibs, kwrite in kdebase and kate in kdesdk. > So if we put it in extragear/utils we are "lying" to our translators and > to people that might use svn as source for their packages, etc. No really.
Actually my (or the kate teams) plan was: - remove Kate Part + App + KWrite from their current places - keep ktexteditor where it is (to have BC+SC kept) and have a small copy in kate.git to allow easier development (which I will keep in sync with the REAL on in kdelibs - have kate.git packaged as kate.tar whatever with kde releases I have no problem to be moved to extragear, but I would like to remain in the normal KDE SC release. And I don't see this as a special wish, given for example kdesdk will for sure split anyway up, why is it a problem if kate splits out first? How will other split modules be handled? I have no problem if kate stays in the "kdesdk" group, if there is any or any other toplevel group. I not insist on some toplevel "kate whatever" thing, just a place where the kate.git can be and be packaged with the KDE release. Greetings Christoph _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
