status of reduced link interface ?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Thursday 24 July 2008, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 July 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > you committed a lot of link fixes in the last days.
> > Since I don't have the compile-power to check it myself, does everything
> > in KDE/ now link correctly again ?
>
> everything but kdepim it seems, thats a bigger pain to get right. you can
> watch the status at http://developer.kde.org/~dirk/dashboard
>
> > If so, what do you think about removing the option and making the reduced
> > linking the default in trunk next monday ?
>
> Thats what I wanted to propose as well, you just wrote the email faster. :)

So it seems we agree :-)

> > And, what do you think about 4.1 branch ? It would be nice if we would
> > have it there too, as soon as possible.
>
> It is possible to backport the changes, but there might be new link
> failures in unusual configurations.. tricky to get right in that short
> amount of time.

Yes, that's true.

> > Oh, I just noticed 4.1.0 has been tagged yesterday. So if we do this for
> > 4.1.1, we'll kind of break compatibility between 4.1.0 and 4.1.1.
>
> we "only" break source compatibility, not binary compatibility. so its
> possible to do that for 4.1.1.
>
> Which part do you want to have backported? the link line fixes or the
> actual dependency reduction patch (with the LINK_INTERFACE_LIBS)?

As much as possible as soon as possible.
I think this means the link line fixes for 4.1.0 and the reduction patch 
directly after 4.1.0, so it can get into 4.1.1.

> > P.S. did I miss a reminder email "4.1.0 will be tagged tomorrow" or
> > something like this ? This would have been nice. Or is the average
> > developer now expected to subscribe to kde-releaseteam ?
>
> No, but knowing about freezes. There was no announcement on

Yeah, I did know them, but I wasn't sure they were still valid since nothing 
was announced in advance or directly after the tag had been created.

> kde-cvs-announce this time because we often got complains about the mail
> "flood". Well, seems like it is necessary after all.

Yes, I'd say so :-)

Alex