Re: K3b 2.10.0 Applications/16.12

[Leslie Zhai]

Hi KDE Core,

Can K3b go to kdemultimedia module? please give me some advice, thanks a 
lot!



On 2016年11月04日 07:46, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

El dijous, 3 de novembre de 2016, a les 11:03:44 CET, Leslie Zhai va escriure:

在 2016年11月03日 07:42, Albert Astals Cid 写道:

El dimecres, 2 de novembre de 2016, a les 9:33:18 CET, Leslie Zhai va

escriure:

在 2016年11月02日 07:58, Albert Astals Cid 写道:

El dimarts, 1 de novembre de 2016, a les 9:20:35 CET, Leslie Zhai va

escriure:

在 2016年10月31日 17:54, Albert Astals Cid 写道:

El dilluns, 31 d’octubre de 2016, a les 11:13:21 CET, Leslie Zhai va

escriure:

Hi Release Team,

Could make a tag for K3b 2.10.0 Applications/16.12 please? Thanks a
lot!

k3b has never been part of the KDE Applications release.

I am a newbie of K3b maintainer, so I did *NOT* know that...

Sure, no worries.


Are you asking for it to be included in KDE Applications 16.12?

Yes please ;-) thanks a lot!

Not so fast :)

Which module do you want it to go to?
Have you spoken with the module coordinator and gotten his approval?

Not yet! please introduce me to the coordinator ;-) I am also a newbie
of KDE developer, only know some developers, thanks a lot!

Depends on the module you want to go to
https://community.kde.org/Release_Team

I reviewed the patch related K3b in kdemultimedia group
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/dashboard/?group=kdemultimedia
Is K3b able to go to kdemultimedia? but kdemultimedia release
coordinator is help wanted? please give me some advice, thanks a lot!

I don't know what to say.

Can it go to kdemultimedia? That the kdemultimedia people would have to say
yes/no, but given there's probably no such group of people, who gets to say?

Not me, I'm just the guy that creates the tarballs and tries to get things
from falling out.

I guess if *you* think that k3b should be part of kdemultimedia you should
send an email to both kde-core-devel and kdemultimedia mailing lists saying so
and if noone disagrees before November 9 we can do the move.

On the other hand November 9 is kind of very close to now, but oh well.
I am so sorry to break the dependency freeze oflibkcddb 
regarding the Applications/16.08 
release! I should pay more attention to deadline - Nov 09 is freeze?




On other kind of news, http://k3b.org/ looks like it has very old stuff and is
unamtained, maybe you could go over it, see if there's anything worth keeping
and if not we can just redirect it to https://userbase.kde.org/K3b or https://
www.kde.org/applications/multimedia/k3b/ or something?
Sebastian Trüg, the original author of K3b, asked my sourceforge 
identity, and tried to grant me privileges 
https://sourceforge.net/p/k3b/admin/ but still Error 403 - Admin access 
required! the same story to http://k3b.org/

so maybe we just redirect to https://userbase.kde.org/K3b I can Edit it ;-)




Cheers,
   Albert


Cheers,

Albert




--
Regards,
Leslie Zhai - a KDE developer https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/users/lesliezhai/

Re: K3b 2.10.0 Applications/16.12

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dijous, 3 de novembre de 2016, a les 11:03:44 CET, Leslie Zhai va escriure:
> 在 2016年11月03日 07:42, Albert Astals Cid 写道:
> > El dimecres, 2 de novembre de 2016, a les 9:33:18 CET, Leslie Zhai va
> > 
> > escriure:
> >> 在 2016年11月02日 07:58, Albert Astals Cid 写道:
> >>> El dimarts, 1 de novembre de 2016, a les 9:20:35 CET, Leslie Zhai va
> > 
> > escriure:
>  在 2016年10月31日 17:54, Albert Astals Cid 写道:
> > El dilluns, 31 d’octubre de 2016, a les 11:13:21 CET, Leslie Zhai va
> >>> 
> >>> escriure:
> >> Hi Release Team,
> >> 
> >> Could make a tag for K3b 2.10.0 Applications/16.12 please? Thanks a
> >> lot!
> > 
> > k3b has never been part of the KDE Applications release.
>  
>  I am a newbie of K3b maintainer, so I did *NOT* know that...
> >>> 
> >>> Sure, no worries.
> >>> 
> > Are you asking for it to be included in KDE Applications 16.12?
>  
>  Yes please ;-) thanks a lot!
> >>> 
> >>> Not so fast :)
> >>> 
> >>> Which module do you want it to go to?
> >>> Have you spoken with the module coordinator and gotten his approval?
> >> 
> >> Not yet! please introduce me to the coordinator ;-) I am also a newbie
> >> of KDE developer, only know some developers, thanks a lot!
> > 
> > Depends on the module you want to go to
> > https://community.kde.org/Release_Team
> 
> I reviewed the patch related K3b in kdemultimedia group
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/dashboard/?group=kdemultimedia
> Is K3b able to go to kdemultimedia? but kdemultimedia release
> coordinator is help wanted? please give me some advice, thanks a lot!

I don't know what to say.

Can it go to kdemultimedia? That the kdemultimedia people would have to say 
yes/no, but given there's probably no such group of people, who gets to say?

Not me, I'm just the guy that creates the tarballs and tries to get things 
from falling out.

I guess if *you* think that k3b should be part of kdemultimedia you should 
send an email to both kde-core-devel and kdemultimedia mailing lists saying so 
and if noone disagrees before November 9 we can do the move.

On the other hand November 9 is kind of very close to now, but oh well.

On other kind of news, http://k3b.org/ looks like it has very old stuff and is 
unamtained, maybe you could go over it, see if there's anything worth keeping 
and if not we can just redirect it to https://userbase.kde.org/K3b or https://
www.kde.org/applications/multimedia/k3b/ or something?

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >Albert

Re: KDEPIM (16.12) and Gpgme minimum requirement

[Andre Heinecke]

Hi,

On Thursday 03 November 2016 18:57:34 Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 3. November 2016, 11:45:47 schrieb Sandro Knauß:
> That's good news from my (KGpg) point of view, as we were recently in a
> discussion which versions we need to support. We do not need gpgme itself,
> but we use the headers to get some algorithm defines.

I really encourage you to use gpgme, It's the defined API for GnuPG and 
programs using gnupg should use it! :-). I held a talk about why you should 
use gpgme, or better qgpgme / gpgmepp recently but sadly the video from that 
talk is still not published. :-( Slides [1] and Abstract [2] are published but 
I don't think they capture the main point which is: "Use gpgme or don't ever 
complain about output / interface changes in gnupg, using gnupg in a program 
without GpgME is like using private API"

> Does that version of GpgME bring a CMake config file with it so we can drop
> the FindGpgME.cmake we copied somewhere from?

I think I've convinced the maintainer of GpgME to install pkg-config files in 
the future for GpgME, we had some loud arguments (beer involved) about finding 
GpgME at build time (especially on Windows). I think I can get pkg-config files 
upstream and then the cmake config file should be doable, too. Because the 
overall maintainer of gpgme thinks that pkg-config is an unportable devilish 
thing, created by these young people who don't care about compatibility with 
systems from the 70'ies, just like cmake ;-) . So if I can get in a pkg-config 
file in I also should be able to get in a cmake config file in and I already 
got 
the ok for pkg-config.

Just have to do it, but I think I can do it for 1.7.2. (no promises as the 
overall maintainer might veto it)

Regards,
Andre


1: https://files.intevation.de/users/aheinecke/gpgme.pdf
2: http://openpgp-conf.org/program.html#andre

--
Andre Heinecke |  ++49-541-335083-262  | http://www.intevation.de/
Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998
Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: KDEPIM (16.12) and Gpgme minimum requirement

[Sandro Knauß]

Hey,

> That's good news from my (KGpg) point of view, as we were recently in a
> discussion which versions we need to support. We do not need gpgme itself,
> but we use the headers to get some algorithm defines.
> 
> Does that version of GpgME bring a CMake config file with it so we can drop
> the FindGpgME.cmake we copied somewhere from?

As far as I see, no you can't drop it at the moment. 1.7.1 only creates cmake 
files for Qt (QGpgme) and C++(Gpgmepp) bindings. But maybe if you ask Andre 
nicely he will add cmake files for C interface too in 1.7.2 :)

Also one thing to remake about QGpgme/Gpgmepp, there internal version numbers 
are 7.0.0(QGpgme) and 6.0.0(Gpgmepp) in 1.7.1, but these are unified to the 
same version like Gpgme to 1.7.2. Please be aware of this if you add a minimum 
version for those.

Best regards,

sandro

Re: KDEPIM (16.12) and Gpgme minimum requirement

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Am Donnerstag, 3. November 2016, 11:45:47 schrieb Sandro Knauß:
> Hey,
> 
> Together with Andre Heinecke (developer of gpgme), we discussed the minimum
> version of GpgME we want to support with the upcoming release of KDEPIM for
> Applications 16.12.
> 
> You may got the notice, that the cpp(gpgme++) and qt (QGpgme) interface,
> previously build by KDEPIM in the libgpgmepp package, moved down to GpgME
> directly. That's why KDEPIM depends on very recent GpgME.
> 
> Together with Andre we came to the conclusion, that we want to support:
> 
> GpgME >= 1.7.1

That's good news from my (KGpg) point of view, as we were recently in a 
discussion which versions we need to support. We do not need gpgme itself, but 
we use the headers to get some algorithm defines.

Does that version of GpgME bring a CMake config file with it so we can drop the 
FindGpgME.cmake we copied somewhere from?

Eike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

KDEPIM (16.12) and Gpgme minimum requirement

[Sandro Knauß]

Hey,

Together with Andre Heinecke (developer of gpgme), we discussed the minimum 
version of GpgME we want to support with the upcoming release of KDEPIM for 
Applications 16.12. 

You may got the notice, that the cpp(gpgme++) and qt (QGpgme) interface, 
previously build by KDEPIM in the libgpgmepp package, moved down to GpgME 
directly. That's why KDEPIM depends on very recent GpgME.

Together with Andre we came to the conclusion, that we want to support:

GpgME >= 1.7.1

We can't support 1.7.0 because the API is not complete in this version, to 
support KDEPIM. 1.7.2 will be released hopefully next week and will clean up 
some things and extend the API again (moved things from libkleo -> gpgme), but 
it is ABI compatible with 1.7.1.

For KDE Applications 17.04 we will raise the minimum version very certainly 
again, to get rid of copies in libkleo.

Regards,

Sandro Knauß

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.