-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Nov 10, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Justin Karneges wrote: > On Saturday 10 November 2007 1:09 pm, Allen Winter wrote: >> On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:14:04 Tom Albers wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As a conclusion to the thread this week I want to propose to move >>> everything except kdewin32 to extragear/libs. >>> >>> The reason is that as far as i know all libs in there have provided >>> tarballs which are the requirement for KDE. KDE does not depend on >>> kdesupport anymore, but on those tarballs as some projects have >>> not been >>> following the release schedule of kdelibs. >>> >>> Without objections before next wednesday, I will start >>> preparations to do >>> the move the monday after that. We need to inform kde-core-devel and >>> adjust techbase articles. >> >> Since these libs are not KDE-based, then they probably don't >> belong in >> extragear. And we are so close to the release.. I'm afraid to muck >> too much >> with things right now. >> >> If the packages are willing to go along with the KDE release >> schedule, >> then I think they should stay in kdesupport. If they want a >> completely >> different schedule then we need to do something else. > > I always thought kdesupport held projects "close to KDE" but were > essentially > independent. For example, taglib is also released independently, I > think? > > So this idea of trunk having to stay synced with the KDE release > schedule is > news to me. I just thought we had to have API/ABI stable tarballs > ready > before KDE (which I succeeded at). Moving independent projects out of > kdesupport does seem like a policy change to me, but then maybe I > never > understood the kdesupport policy in the first place... > This was my interpretion as well. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't be doing any releasing with kdesupport at all, but perhaps we're changing things for KDE 4 and I just missed that particular announcement. > If it is decided that projects should be moved out, please let me > know in > advance so I can consider possible arrangements. I could even just > move qca > back into my own repository, which is where it was before Brad > Hards invited > me to kdesupport. > >> In the case of qca, Justin makes it pretty clear that version >> 2.0.0 is what >> they expect people to use in KDE4.0.0. So... I think the best >> thing to do >> is: 1) remove qca from the kdesupport/CMakeLists.txt >> 2) change the build instructions to say that qca should be >> installed from >> distribution packages or from source code >> 3) leave the rest of kdesupport as is > > Sounds safe. > > -Justin - -- Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHN9W6A6Vv5rghv0cRAiuMAKCwvl+SuFDmxpYfpPFEmFedGeYBSgCgkKCX 6DXDG7Ov9qtOzx0Tay/8S5I= =0ycV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
