On 11/12/2011 12:55 PM, Christoph Feck wrote:
Since it was me who raised this issue on IRC, I should clarify:
I have no problem with the ksecrets stuff in *kdelibs*, but I do not
like that it has been added to *kdeui*. The only reason given was that
kwallet API is also part of kdeui, but why sho
Since it was me who raised this issue on IRC, I should clarify:
I have no problem with the ksecrets stuff in *kdelibs*, but I do not
like that it has been added to *kdeui*. The only reason given was that
kwallet API is also part of kdeui, but why should we make this mistake
again?
Christoph Fe
On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 15:28:48 andrea diamantini wrote:
> I think that every app using cookies would like to have this patch merged
> ASAP, expecially browsers. This will help/fix/improve features like
> "private browsing" and so on. So please don't let us wait for the "big
> Universe reo
Valentin Rusu wrote:
> However, I should remove the ksecretsserviced from kde-runtime and let
> it go the the ksecrets repository, under kdeutils. And I'll do it later
> today.
Uhm, kde-runtime isn't frozen like kdelibs…
Kevin Kofler
On 11/12/2011 11:55 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
And that's where my question comes from, I thought the consensus with the
involved parties after that new discussion was for a new repository, but I
might have missed something.
So that was the intent of my previous email, now that the red flag g
On Saturday 12 November 2011, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2011 11:14:35 Valentin Rusu wrote:
> > On 11/12/2011 10:11 AM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > Any particular reason why you didn't stick to the separate repo
> > > solution as proposed earlier? For some reason I fail to see what
On 11/12/2011 11:24 AM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
Please see my response to Aaron.
And that's where my question comes from, I thought the consensus with the
involved parties after that new discussion was for a new repository, but I
might have missed something.
Well, the discussion came *after* I merge
On Saturday 12 November 2011 11:14:35 Valentin Rusu wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 10:11 AM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Any particular reason why you didn't stick to the separate repo solution
> > as proposed earlier? For some reason I fail to see what motivated your
> > change on that.
>
> Well, as I explain
On 11/12/2011 10:11 AM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:01:15 Valentin Rusu wrote:
As you may already know, the ksecretsservice API merging to the
kdelibs/4.7 branch was no longer an acceptable solution because of
recent frameworks related decisions. It was suggested to put i
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> first, let's back off from the unecessary rhetoric. for instance, i don't
> think calling people hypocrites is going to get anyone anywhere other than
> annoyed, upset and divided. i hope we can agree on that.
Unfortunately, it's the decision by some kdelibs developers incl
On Saturday 12 November 2011 08:12:27 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Circular dependencies are an absolute PITA for packaging.
Yes, obviously we're going to try to avoid that.
Regards.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: T
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:01:15 Valentin Rusu wrote:
> As you may already know, the ksecretsservice API merging to the
> kdelibs/4.7 branch was no longer an acceptable solution because of
> recent frameworks related decisions. It was suggested to put it into
> it's separate repository, alongs
On Saturday 12 November 2011 08:12:27 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> We definitely do want your ksecretsservice work ASAP and I don't see why it
> can't be in kdelibs where it belongs.
*sigh* could we please stop adding this whining about the frozen kdelibs in
each thread on kde-core-devel.
Yes we got tha
13 matches
Mail list logo
