Proposal: New module "kdepimlibs"
volker.krause at rwth-aachen.de
Thu May 4 17:17:41 BST 2006
On Thursday 04 May 2006 12:28, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Thursday, 4. May 2006 03:42, Matt Rogers wrote:
> > Ok, so I'm totally convinced this is a good idea now. When's it going to
> > happen and do I need to do something to help move it along? I've not seen
> > any objections.
There is some formal stuff regarding the policy which is currently sorted out
Beside from this there are a few dependency and licensing problems. Some have
already been solved, the following issues are still open:
- libkmime is GPL-licensed, but since libkcal no longer depends on it we can
move it at a later point if necessary
- libkcal dependency to ktnef (can be inverted to ktnef depending on libkcal)
- libemailfunctions (a set of four classes, one seems unused, three have
nothing to do with emails) needs to be dissolved
- interfaces/kimproxy and interfaces/ktexteditor depend on libkabc, ie.
libkabc can't just be moved out of kdelibs
Nothing really problematic, but needs to be done.
> I've had some questions for clarifications, which remained unanswered so
> far, because out of bounds release schemes tend to collide with KDE version
Allen is working on an updated version of the policy document to clarify these
The part about diffrent release schedules has been removed, I don't think it
will be necessary (this was discussed for kdepim several times in the past
but never really used). Cornelius, you brought this up, is there any case
where this would be needed?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the kde-core-devel