kdewebkit moved to kdereview

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009, Alexis Ménard va escriure:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> > A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009, Albert Astals Cid va escriure:
> > > A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009, Urs Wolfer va escriure:
> > > > On Sunday 25 October 2009 20:31:25 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > > A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009, Urs Wolfer va escriure:
> > > > > > I have just moved the kdewebkit lib from
> > > > > >  playground/libs/webkitkde/kdewebkit into kdereview. It's the KDE
> > > > > >  integration part of QtWebKit which is used directly in many apps
> >
> > and
> >
> > > > > > libs already (...which does *not* include the WebKit KPart). Any
> >
> > KDE
> >
> > > > > > app is supposed to move to this integration lib when it is in
> >
> > kdelibs
> >
> > > > > > (plans are to move it to kdelibs/kdewebkit).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It requires an up-to-date kdelibs because of recent changes in
> > > > > > KIO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is still a copy of it in
> > > > > > playground/libs/webkitkde/kdewebkit
> >
> > in
> >
> > > > > > order to allow building the WebKit KPart without kdereview.
> > > > > > Please
> >
> > do
> >
> > > > > > not work anymore with this copy, but use the kdereview copy! I
> > > > > > will drop the playground copy as soon as has been moved to
> > > > > > kdelibs.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the use case of this?
> > > >
> > > > Many distributions create packages for the WebKit KPart. That's why I
> >
> > do
> >
> > > >  not want to depenend on kdelibs trunk and kdereview parts. It would
> >
> > only
> >
> > > >  introduce additional complexity.
> > >
> > > That's not what i asked, what i asked is why this code should go to
> > >  kdelibs, what does it give over the technologies we already have
> > > there?
> >
> > Ok, let me say it in different words for it to be clear since some people
> > do
> > not want to understand.
> >
> > kdelibs has KHTML, we don't need webkit at all.
> 
> Yes it has and? I mean if we have something that works better why not
> pushing it?
> 
> That is your point of view, let's wait others.
> 
> > The problem is that Nokians agenda is kill KHTML in favor of QtWebkit.
> 
> lol, what gives you this impression? Where have you read this? I think you
> have to stop to be paranoiac (Nokia don't control and don't want to control
> KDE).
> 
> I would rather say that many KDE people are pushing for Webkit, like the
> Silk project (No relation at all with Nokia).
> 
> Have you been to this discussion in Gran Canaria where Konqueror/KHTML
> people were talking about Webkit? 

Yes i was there.

> There was trolls in that group just to
> answer questions and help them with Webkit not to say : "switch to webkit".
> 
> > I only want to remind you the fiasco (Can't print in okular. can't do
> > poster
> > printing. why i can't print only odd pages?) of the killing of KDEPrint
> > by forcing QPrinter on us that never got fixed and we are still suffering
> > the consequences by asking us to rewrite what we already had working.
> 
> This is completely different. It's unfortunate but if Nokia don't fix fast
> enough or don't bring features fast enough, they have an open repository
> where you can add what you would have done in KDEPrint.

No i can't my religion doesn't allow me to develop for corporations for free.

Albert

> 
> 
> Albert
> 
> > > Albert
> > >
> > > > Bye
> > > > urs
>