On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday 19 July 2012, Martin Gräßlin wrote: >> On Thursday 19 July 2012 20:35:51 Marco Martin wrote: >> > but the most important thing is that kf5 is kinda the last chance for big >> > incompatime changes, at least for a long while. >> >> do we need a libplasma in KF 5.0? Would it be a huge issue to say libplasma >> is split out of frameworks but not released as part of 5.0, but will enter >> in 5.1 or 5.2. Or having a split-out libplasma API compatible might be a >> quite nice thing in fact for 3rd-party applications using Plasma and don't >> want to do heavy porting. Remember KF 5 should be easy to port to, right >> ;-) > > personally, would not be a problem and would give quite some room to breathe > ;) > > anybody can think about technical problems about it that may be lurking? > it may mean a release of the workspace that doesn't use completely frameworks, > so both old kdelibs and the frameworks will have to be distributed for some > time, may this be a problem? (but not avoidable probably) > > > Cheers, > Marco Martin > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Well, the "only" problem would be that any application using plasma wouldn't be able to be ported to KF5. In any case, I think that in this case it makes sense to foresee a binary breakage like in 1 year. Rushing into this could put us in an unstable place where we've been before. Aleix _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel