On Thursday 10 October 2013 17:56:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 10 October 2013, Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013 19:26:48 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013, Lubomir Rintel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I know it's a bit too early, but still better than late. I'd like to > > > > know your thoughts about the way KF5 frameworks will be packaged for > > > > Linux distributions. > > > > > > > > I'm currently working on including Hawaii desktop (based around a Qt5 > > > > and Wayland-based compositor) in Fedora. We aim at delivering it > > > > around > > > > two Fedora releases in future therefore it makes sense to work on > > > > packaging already. It currently depends on frameworks from kdelibs > > > > framework branch (currently it's probably just tier1/solid) and extra > > > > cmake modules. > > > > > > > > I'm wondering what's your position on naming the packages? Does kf5-* > > > > prefix (kf5-solid, kf5-extra-cmake-modules) make sense to you? > > > > OpenSUSE > > > > seems to use that (except that they don't include the prefix for ECM). > > > > > > IMHO extra-cmake-modules really should not get a "kf5" prefix, this > > > would > > > IMO at least partly defeat its purpose. It was intended as addons for > > > cmake (which happen to be useful for KDE), not as a tier0 package of > > > KF5. Not sure if this changed though. > > > > This. At least from what I understood in that regard, esp. from listening > > to the KF5 talk at dev days yesterday. > > What do you mean with "This." ?
:) Internet slang to stress my agreement with what you said before. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=this Cheers -- Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
