On Sunday, 31 de October de 2010 12:34:33 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> > Except that most (all?) of kdelibs is LGPL, not GPL. So using it for
> > making money/in closed source apps is possible right now under certain
> > conditions.
>
> Except that Nokia would require giving them additional rights (fu
On Sunday, 31 de October de 2010 16:14:52 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > Exactly. So if these rocking libraries are part of Qt and so available to
> > every single Qt developer, they can easily become part of KDE as well.
> > Something which is quite a barrier today.
>
> You are joking, right? Are y
On Sunday, October 31, 2010 05:53:18 PM Matt Williams wrote:
> 2010/10/31 Alexander Neundorf :
> > On Sunday 31 October 2010, todd rme wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen
> >
> > wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> > 1. Small improvements to the Qt Libraries
> >> >
> >> > Those are
On Sunday 31 October 2010 21:39:09 Stefan Majewsky wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 31. Oktober 2010, 20:39:30 schrieb John Layt:
> > I've been away all day and need to catch up on the thread, but just a
> > heads-up that this has been picked up by the press already and is making
> > its way around the feeds:
A Diumenge, 31 d'octubre de 2010, Cornelius Schumacher va escriure:
> On Sunday 31 October 2010 Juan Carlos Torres wrote:
> > So basically, what would convince 3rd party developers
> > (Qt developers, Windows developers, iOS/Android developers)
> > to write KDE apps? Better yet, what would now cons
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Stefan Majewsky
wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 31. Oktober 2010, 20:39:30 schrieb John Layt:
>> I've been away all day and need to catch up on the thread, but just a
>> heads-up that this has been picked up by the press already and is making
>> its way around the feeds:
>>
Hello,
On sekmadienis 31 Spalis 2010 23:39:09 Stefan Majewsky wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 31. Oktober 2010, 20:39:30 schrieb John Layt:
> > I've been away all day and need to catch up on the thread, but just a
> > heads-up that this has been picked up by the press already and is making
> > its way around
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Chani wrote:
>
>> When I was at DevDays, I noticed that while people were very enthusiastic
>> about Qt, I was getting a sort of "qt is all you need" vibe at times - a
>> fine sentiment for promoting qt, but then, what about kdelibs?
>>
>> A
Hi,
I reply to the thread.
I am a Nokia employee working on Qt, I joined Trolltech in 2007, shortly
before te aquisition. But what I am saying here is personal and does not
represent Nokia.
Regarding release cycles, we want to improve our releases cycle and release
much faster. We want to ha
Am Sonntag, 31. Oktober 2010, 20:39:30 schrieb John Layt:
> I've been away all day and need to catch up on the thread, but just a
> heads-up that this has been picked up by the press already and is making
> its way around the feeds:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODczOQ
Wh
On Sunday 31 October 2010 Juan Carlos Torres wrote:
>
> So basically, what would convince 3rd party developers
> (Qt developers, Windows developers, iOS/Android developers)
> to write KDE apps? Better yet, what would now constitute being
> a "KDE app"? Platform integration and consistency? Only on
On Sunday 31 October 2010, Juan Carlos Torres wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Cornelius Schumacher
wrote:
> > KDE would still create great applications based on Qt, just as we do now,
> > but
> > without the additional layering of the KDE libraries on top of Qt.
>
>
>
> > KDE is much m
On Sunday 31 October 2010 11:33:22 Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
>
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-co
> Except that most (all?) of kdelibs is LGPL, not GPL. So using it for
> making money/in closed source apps is possible right now under certain
> conditions.
Except that Nokia would require giving them additional rights (full
rights to do whatever they want with the code), so he was right ---
the
On 31.10.10 17:42:22, Zorael wrote:
> I'm not a developer but I thought I'd pipe in.
>
> Without really touching on how to technically make kdelibs more
> modular and which bits to upstream into Qt (although I like the
> {tier1,tier2,platform} divisioning proposed in the wiki), I don't see
> how t
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> KDE would still create great applications based on Qt, just as we do now,
> but
> without the additional layering of the KDE libraries on top of Qt.
>
> KDE is much more than the libraries, actually if KDE would be about
> librari
I'm not a developer but I thought I'd pipe in.
Without really touching on how to technically make kdelibs more
modular and which bits to upstream into Qt (although I like the
{tier1,tier2,platform} divisioning proposed in the wiki), I don't see
how this can be done without /donating/ the code to N
Hi!
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
It's a very controversial idea. However, I think it is so refreshing
that it deserves some more thought. Personally, I think the idea is
great, if we can overcome some of the obvious road blocks. I would
love to read some honest and direct though
Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> What do you think about it?
Let's merge Qt and the KDE development platform. Let's put all KDE
libraries,
support libraries, platform modules into Qt, remove the redundancies in Qt,
and polish it into one nice consistent set of APIs, providing both, the
wonderful KDE
Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> Why be content with being a second-class citizen, when you can be first
> class as well?
I don't think having a separate repo, release schedule, license and
development process makes a third party library a second class citizen. I'm
also not 100% certain that's wha
2010/10/31 Alexander Neundorf :
> On Sunday 31 October 2010, todd rme wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen
> wrote:
> ...
>> > 1. Small improvements to the Qt Libraries
>> >
>> > Those are the so called convenient classes. Classes the have been added
>> > to the
>> > KDE Libs
On Sunday 31 October 2010, todd rme wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen
wrote:
...
> > 1. Small improvements to the Qt Libraries
> >
> > Those are the so called convenient classes. Classes the have been added
> > to the
> > KDE Libs because of some shortcomings of the Qt Clas
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> attached you can find a dependency graph for kfile in kdelibs.
Cool. Great initiative. Actually I had no idea what KFile was or why one
would use it until right now. I had always assumed it was a QFile subclass
or wrapper for some reason.
All the best,
Ste
On 10/31/2010 12:33 PM, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
What do you think about it?
My 2 cents: Qt currently falls far short of our standard when
it comes to being a decent open source project. Governance,
development process and commit access are far from having been
sorted out in a satisfying manner.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Diumenge, 31 d'octubre de 2010, todd rme va escriure:
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen jansen.biz>wrote:
> > > On Sunday 31 October 2010 12:33:22 Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> > > > Hey all,
> > > >
> > I think this sou
A Diumenge, 31 d'octubre de 2010, todd rme va escriure:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 October 2010 12:33:22 Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> I think this sounds like the place to start, for several reasons:
>
> 5. Licensing shouldn't be as
Hi,
attached you can find a dependency graph for kfile in kdelibs.
This graph was created using dot, and the dotfile has been created
automatically by cmake.
So, you can do this for any cmake-based software, i.e. for all of KDE, etc.
It generates a dot-file for the whole project (too big to be u
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Sunday 31 October 2010 12:33:22 Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> > kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> > Cornelius had pr
On Sunday, 31 de October de 2010 08:44:19 Sven Langkamp wrote:
> That's also a problem with Qt as it's often pretty limited especially if
> you have a very demanding application like Krita, Amarok or Maya. In the
> future it would be nice if Nokia would give control over these areas to
> the commun
On Sunday 31 October 2010, Sven Langkamp wrote:
> That's also a problem with Qt as it's often pretty limited especially if you
> have a very demanding application like Krita, Amarok or Maya. In the future
> it would be nice if Nokia would give control over these areas to the
> community. Since the
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Saturday 30 October 2010, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>
> > Seriously, i see no gain and lots of pain. Because the "gain" in your
> words is
> > "they will maintain our stuff because we have no manpower and they do",
> but we
> > have lear
On Sunday, 31 de October de 2010 01:29:41 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> that's not his point. the contribution model won't get us anywhere
> kde-wise until nokia discards the stupid contribution agreement. it
> blocks any kde code reuse unless all relevant contributors happen to be
> still around and
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On the other hand, Krita would, I am sure, much bigger if it didn't depend on
> the KDE platform. For KOffice, we had to hack down kdelibs and package a
> pre-generated sycoca to make it work. The platform fills in the holes on unix
> pl
On Saturday 30 October 2010, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Seriously, i see no gain and lots of pain. Because the "gain" in your words
> is
> "they will maintain our stuff because we have no manpower and they do", but
> we
> have learnt that is not true, so where is the gain?
Well, I really have
On Sunday 31 October 2010, Torsten Rahn wrote:
...
> This requires an open mindset which allows to reevaluate and question
> everything KDE. I'm positively surprised to see so many KDE people here
> being open for dramatic changes.
We're (still) used to it ;-)
Alex
On Sunday 31 October 2010 12:33:22 Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
>
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-co
On Sunday 31 October 2010 13:37:00 Modestas Vainius wrote:
> But what happens when you (KDE) decide that you really need a new feature
> of kioslaves for the next release. But the next Qt release is not due in 7
> months or you (again) have trouble merging changes back to Qt with
> patience running
On 31 October 2010 12:37, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On sekmadienis 31 Spalis 2010 14:04:28 Matt Williams wrote:
>> On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell wrote:
>> > On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
>> >> Hey all,
>> >>
>> >> after reading the whole thread that starte
Hello,
On sekmadienis 31 Spalis 2010 14:04:28 Matt Williams wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell wrote:
> > On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> >> kdelibs?"), I think the noise
2010/10/31 nihui :
> hi, Henrique Pinto
> klickety now has the ksame mode in its codebase. The purpose is to replace
> ksame with klickety in kdegames module. It seems that there were no changes
> in ksame for a long time. Since you are the maintainer of ksame, I need your
> comments on this mov
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
>
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core
On Sunday 31 October 2010, John Tapsell wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> > kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> > Cornelius had proposed this rathe
A Diumenge, 31 d'octubre de 2010, Matt Williams va escriure:
> On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell wrote:
> > On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> >> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Matt Williams wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell wrote:
>> On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
>>> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a
On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
>> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
>> Cornelius had proposed this rather dar
On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
>
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m
Hey all,
after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=128842761708404&w=2
It's a very controversial idea. However,
On Saturday 30 October 2010 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Answering Cornelius and Alexander here.
>
> Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > I know what you think ("madness", "no", "KDE 5", "impossible",
> > "governance", "binary compatibility", "Nokia", "impossible", ...), but if
> > you put that aside for a w
Hello,
2010/10/31 nihui :
> hi, Henrique Pinto
> klickety now has the ksame mode in its codebase. The purpose is to replace
> ksame with klickety in kdegames module. It seems that there were no changes
> in ksame for a long time. Since you are the maintainer of ksame, I need your
> comments on
On 10/30/10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Dissabte, 30 d'octubre de 2010, Cornelius Schumacher va escriure:
>> On Saturday 30 October 2010 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> > I know we keep coming to the same place, but no, it would not be a
>> > wonderful answer, it would be a disaster like it was for
On Saturday 30 October 2010, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > I think BC is less important that SC.
> > If a KDE5 would just require a recompile, and maybe some changes in the
> > cmake scripts (like additional find_package(SomeKLibrary)), this
> > shouldn't be a too big problem
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Dawit A wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Dawit A wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
> >> Dne St 27. října 2010 00:57:27 Christophe Giboudeaux napsal(a):
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Le 27/10/2010 00:20, Dawit A a écrit :
> >>> > Do
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:26:31PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 de October de 2010 18:32:21 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > A Diumenge, 31 d'octubre de 2010, Thiago Macieira va escriure:
> > > Two of the three will. I'm working as fast as I can to make it happen.
> >
> > Too bad yo
On Saturday 30 October 2010, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> On 10/30/10 5:49 AM, Christophe Giboudeaux wrote:
> > Automoc and Cagibi moved to git.kde.org.
>
> Speaking of, thanks for the reminder. Is there ever going to be a
> 0.9.89 release of Automoc? It's got fixes for OSX, I've been using a
> snapsho
Hello Everyone
I am preparing a talk for Latinoware (VII Latino American Conference of Free
Software)
wich is about "KDE needs you: how to start to contribute".
And I would like to be very specific when I explain how/where they can help,
'cause If they feel motivated to start to contribute as so
55 matches
Mail list logo
