Moving Baloo forward

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Friday 17 January 2014 01:47:17 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Thus my suggestion is that after we get the wiki done and we explain
> clearly  the situation as Thomas Lübking suggested (i.e. if you really
> really really really need what Nepomuk provides and can't accept a single
> regression in that field, do not upgrade), we go ahead with moving to Baloo
> instead of Nepomuk.

I'm concerned about the portability aspect of Baloo. It seems to rely heavily 
on certain API (fgetxattr) while not testing for the availability of that API.

>From a "let's see if this stuff can build" perspective it'd be nice if it gave 
a (better) hint about missing xapian, along the lines of what most KDE modules 
do when a required dependency is missing (is that 
macro_log_optional_feature?). 

Some files still have the boilerplate <one line to give ...> in the copyright 
header, too.

[ade]