kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

[frederik at gladhorn.de]

On Tuesday 4. February 2014 23.40.22 David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2014 11:34:44 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Monday 03 February 2014 10:17:49 David Faure wrote:
> > > Any new module that should be added to this release, compared to TP1?
> > >
> > > Should I include attica?
> >
> > Since this question keeps popping up, let's integrate it. It should also
> > be
> > added to the list: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/List
>
> Yes, but see what I wrote in the "Tier status of attica & kwallet" thread:
> there's some buildsystem work to be done for attica to be a proper
framework
> (making it use ECM, so it can integrate better with the other frameworks
> and be fully consistent with them, including installing camelcase
> forwarding headers etc.), which also means moving the qt4 support into a
> separate branch first.
> Which brings us to the next topic: who as maintainer should approve this.
>
> > Also, since no one stepped up to say if it should be in or out, I'd
say it
> > should be with no declared maintainer until someone claims it.
>
> I was under the impression that it had a maintainer, although right now I
> can't remember if that was Jeremy Whiting or Frederik Gladhorn or someone
> else. Cc'ing them. Guys, any input?
>
> (Note that overall this would lower the future maintainance work on
attica's
> buildsystem, since it will just be maintained together with the other
> frameworks, by anyone who makes changes to ECM or across all frameworks.)

I won't realistically get around to make any improvements and I have no
idea about ECM, so I'd be very happy if someone could take over these
tasks.

I had the impression that Laszlo worked with attica for a while, but I
don't know if he's available for any of this porting work.
>From my point of view, please just go ahead and change it as you think is
sensible.

Greetings,
Frederik