Why keep the old kio/smb? (was: Re: new component for bugs.kde.org)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Wednesday 19 March 2003 22:13, Luis Pedro Coelho wrote:
...
> The other slave seems unmaintained: The last change to the other slave was
> nine months ago according to CVS. Which would be ok if there weren't any
> bugs on it, but that does not seem to be the case.
>
> I rather have a conceptually worse ioslave than a broken and unmaintained
> one.
>
> On unix, having several processes will not cost you much, plus you normally
> get much more foward and backward compatibility working through clients
> than working with libraries.

Well, you don't have to convince *me*, I wrote and try to maintain the 
smbclient-wrapping one :-)

> > > Searching in lists.kde.org didn't bring up any discussions on this, but
> > > I could have missed something.
> >
> > There were discussions, leading to "compile the libsmbclient.so one if
> > this lib is found, otherwise the other one".
>
> Should this decision be revisited?
>
> I hesite to post this as I do not wish to start a huge discussion and
> removing/adding/replacing components is often polemic.
> However, given that the current situations brings some problems, I think it
> the question could be considered again, but please don't escalate the
> discussion.

I don't think a *huge* discussion will start, there are not that many people 
involved in this topic, it seems.

Bye
Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf at jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf at kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex at neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net