On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 10:35 +0100, ext Murray Cumming wrote:
> > If you have ideas what kind of package /
> > library grouping would make sense, we're open for suggestions.
>
> At the moment it looks like hildon-libs, hildon-fm, and hildon-lgpl should
> all be in one tarball, but maybe there's som
> If you have ideas what kind of package /
> library grouping would make sense, we're open for suggestions.
At the moment it looks like hildon-libs, hildon-fm, and hildon-lgpl should
all be in one tarball, but maybe there's some application/lib I don't know
about that wouldn't need all of them.
B
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 17:51 +0100, ext Murray Cumming wrote:
> Why does hildon-lgpl have the license in the name? Why isn't is part of
> hildon-libs?
>
> I'm wondering whether this is just a historical thing. Maybe I should
> wrap the hildon-libs widgets and the hildon-lgpl widgets in one module
>
Hi,
Murray Cumming wrote:
Why does hildon-lgpl have the license in the name? Why isn't is part of
hildon-libs?
Yeah, historical reasons. At some point it was unclear whether all the
widgets would be open or not. It can happen that they'll be merged some day.
Markku Vire
Why does hildon-lgpl have the license in the name? Why isn't is part of
hildon-libs?
I'm wondering whether this is just a historical thing. Maybe I should
wrap the hildon-libs widgets and the hildon-lgpl widgets in one module
for the C++ bindings.
--
Murray Cumming
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.murrayc.
