No way, additional features from this fork get merged back once they are
mature and their API is reviewed. It's not debian's job to subvert OSS projects.
On 03/02/2012 13:55 Boris Pek wrote:
Package: qxmpp
Version: 0.3.0-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
As we can see there are no packages which
Hi,
No way, additional features from this fork get merged back once they are
mature
and their API is reviewed. It's not debian's job to subvert OSS projects.
I know you are one of the authors of qxmpp. That explains your reaction to my
proposal.
But you haven't even tried to understand my
Why can't leechcraft be built with plain qxmpp? Qxmpp is modular by nature so
any additional managers can be provided in the application. The parts of the
code you really need merged back to qxmpp are modifications to existing
classes. I'd be happy to review such changes.
Jeremy
On
Hi!
While I generally agree that it's better to keep one version of a
library in the repositories, and it's better be upstream version, in
case of QXmpp things are a bit more complicated.
First, patch accepting cycle is quite long — we in LeechCraft can't
wait for 2-4 months before features get
Package: qxmpp
Version: 0.3.0-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
As we can see there are no packages which use qxmpp library in Debian yet.
To avoid duplication of code it would be nice to switch your package to the
fork:
https://github.com/0xd34df00d/qxmpp-dev
I need this modified version of library
5 matches
Mail list logo
