[Kde-games-devel] Freeze in 6 weeks

[Ian Wadham]

On 31/01/2015, at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Whiting wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Ian Wadham <iandw.au at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/2015, at 6:43 AM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El Dijous, 29 de gener de 2015, a les 10:05:01, Inge Wallin va escriure:
> >> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 20:47:44 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >>> El Dimecres, 28 de gener de 2015, a les 14:04:14, Inge Wallin va escriure:
> >>>> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 07:38:23 laurent Montel wrote:
> >>>>> I am agree with Albert if there is a problem with network-transparency
> >>>>> on
> >>>>> MacOsX it's better to fix it that remove it.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is not the issue. The issue is that it was promised that if you
> >>>> developed your program with KDE Frameworks 5 instead of KDElibs, you
> >>>> would
> >>>> get a more lightweight program that did not need any daemons to run.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now this turns out to be not true.   *That* is what we want, not to
> >>>> remove
> >>>> network transparency per se. But if the promise from frameworks 5 is not
> >>>> kept, what is there to be done?
> >>>
> >>> Really? Who promised you that? That's never been the promise, the promise
> >>> of KF5 is that it's more modular, and yes there's some libs that don't
> >>> need extra daemons and some that do need them.
> >>
> >> I actually tried to do some research to find this promise in writing but
> >> except for pointing it out as a problem in an article on the dot I couldn't
> >> find any written promise.
> >
> > The list on http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ has three
> > items, functional, solution, integration.
> >
> > As far as i remember, functional means you can use it standalone, solution
> > means it needs a daemon and integration means it needs more stuff (more
> > daemons?
> 
> Thanks Albert, that is handy information, but it should not have to depend for
> its interpretation on anyone's memory.
> 
> Do you know who is responsible for that document?  Could you ask them to
> add a "key" to explain those terms?  Also what do the strike-throughs and
> triangular warning-signs mean with respect to the platform names?  Could
> they add a line about that too?

Jeremy wrote:
> I'm not sure about the stirke-throughs but I would guess it means they either don't build or aren't supported at all on those platforms.

Yes, but which?

> Each of the triangular warning signs is clickable and tells some more detail, for example most of the Linux ones say "Only for X11 platform" or something. 

Heh!  I must be getting old… I never thought of clicking them… :-)
I thought they might be flagging syntax errors in the webpage text.. :-)

Cheers,
Ian W.