Re: KDE SC 4.8.4 important problems

On 06/13/2012 10:58 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dimecres, 13 de juny de 2012, a les 17:43:10, Vishesh Handa va escriure: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: I am totally lost. What is the problem with that commit? AFAIK, the problem is that changes were made in both

Re: KDE SC 4.8.4 important problems

I am totally lost. What is the problem with that commit? On 06/12/2012 07:40 PM, José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote: Therefore, I tend to think the kdelibs commit mentioned in that bug report (3d66d429cb48781881af3e735f2a80af2114ab25) shouldn't have been done for 4.8.4. A confirmation from a Ne

Re: KDE SC 4.8.4 important problems

On 06/12/2012 06:43 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Sune Vuorela mailto:nos...@vuorela.dk>> wrote: On 2012-06-12, Vishesh Handa mailto:m...@vhanda.in>> wrote: > --bcaec554d60626569204c246cba9 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Y

Re: KDE SC 4.8.4 important problems

On 06/10/2012 12:57 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote: Hi, Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2012 schrieb Peter Penz : On 06/10/2012 11:20 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: On Sunday, June 10, 2012 03:23:04 José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote: #1 dolphin: #2 gwenview #6 konta

Re: Nepomuk - Moving out of kde-runtime

ight not be correct. Any > suggestions? > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Krammer <mailto:kram...@kde.org>> wrote: > > On Thursday, 2012-05-17, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > > I think we can manage BC. The only thing

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk - Moving out of kde-runtime

On 05/17/2012 10:08 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Sune Vuorela <mailto:nos...@vuorela.dk>> wrote: > > On 2012-05-17, Sebastian Trüg mailto:tr...@kde.org>> > wrote: > > I think we can manage BC. The only thin

Re: Nepomuk - Moving out of kde-runtime

I think we can manage BC. The only thing that would be hard are the DBus interfaces. But since nepomuk-core contains client libs which are supposed to be used instead of the dbus interfaces... On 05/17/2012 09:19 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2012-05-17, Vishesh Handa wrote: >> @Packagers: We will

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/16/2012 10:40 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Sebastian Trüg wrote: > >> On 05/16/2012 08:23 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: >>> What about kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/* and the other ui stuff? >>> >>> Or since those are just APIs they can wait. >> >> I

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/16/2012 09:52 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > > > On 05/16/2012 09:16 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/16/2012 09:16 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > Pushed my stuff to branch "feature/nepomuk2Includes". > > Feel free to implement Ivan's fancier so

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

eers, Sebastian On 05/16/2012 08:37 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > On 05/16/2012 08:23 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > What about kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/* and the other ui stuff?

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/16/2012 08:37 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > On 05/16/2012 08:23 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > What about kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/* and the other ui stuff? >

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

. The ui stuff - not sure. > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > I now prepared the required repositories: > > scratch/trueg/nepomuk-kde-kio > contains the 3 Nepomuk kio slaves > > scratch/trueg/nep

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

like these have already been discussed with respect to KDE5? Cheers, Sebastian On 05/07/2012 03:58 PM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > On 05/07/2012 03:47 PM, ivan.cu...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maybe there could be something like qt has - BEGIN_NEPOMUK_NAMESPACE... So >> that if the same needs

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

Just as a reminder: most of the issues were already discussed and decided on: http://community.kde.org/Projects/Nepomuk/Irc_meeting_nepomuk_frameworks On 05/11/2012 09:35 AM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote:

Re: The Nepomuk Situation

muk users would be a using namespace NepomukCore; > > Sorry for being a bit vague, I'm writing from my phone. > > Cheerio, > IvanOn 7.5.12. 14.49 Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > > On 05/07/2012 02:35

Re: The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/07/2012 02:35 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > > On 05/07/2012 12:09 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > So, we're down to 3 options - > > &

Re: The Nepomuk Situation

On 05/07/2012 12:09 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, David Faure > wrote: > > On Monday 07 May 2012 13:06:15 Vishesh Handa wrote: > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sune Vuorela > wrote: > > > On 20

Re: [Nepomuk] The Nepomuk Situation

nepomuk-core depends on kdelibs. So kdelibs cannot depend on nepomuk-core. We would have to get rid of those dependencies in kdelibs. But that should not be too hard. On 05/03/2012 11:21 AM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > I just noticed that this discussion is no longer cced to kcd. > > On Thu, May 3, 20

Re: Qt 4.8 QUrl.toLocalFile behavior change, impacts to KUrl (and friends)

On 10/27/2011 11:35 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday, 27 de October de 2011 23:17:49 Milian Wolff wrote: >> On Thursday 27 October 2011 21:11:11 Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On Thursday, 27 de October de 2011 13:32:51 Rex Dieter wrote: See also, http://bugs.kde.org/285028 ( and

Re: Who relies on Soprano::Model::statement[s]Added|Removed signals?

of course this is for the frameworks thingi. On 09/30/2011 07:09 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2011-09-30, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> A Divendres, 30 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >>> Hi lists, >>> >>> with frameworks in the buil

Re: Who relies on Soprano::Model::statement[s]Added|Removed signals?

On 09/30/2011 01:56 PM, Alex Merry wrote: > On 30/09/11 12:36, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> I would like to anyone using the "old" API to change to the new >> ResourceWatcher as soon as possible because I would like to disable the >> old signals soon. They simply enta

Who relies on Soprano::Model::statement[s]Added|Removed signals?

Hi lists, with frameworks in the building and Nepomuk probably going that direction already for 4.8 I would like to clean up a bit. One of these cleanup tasks targets the Soprano::Model statement signals. So far these were the only way to get informed about changes in Nepomuk - with a very bad imp

Do NOT use Soprano 2.7.1 or 2.6.1

The "fix" I introduced in 2.6.1 and 2.7.1 actually made things worse for the DBus comunication as in: "Does not work at all anymore". I am trying to find a better solution. Until that time please stick to 2.7.0 and 2.6.0. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, Sebastian

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

nue using libnepomuk? If so what is > the point of creating libnepomuk2? no, services all depend on the new lib. > * When kde-runtime 4.8 is shipped - How will the nepomuk runtime > components be shipped? as an additional package. > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Sebastian Trüg &

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

On 09/19/2011 11:07 AM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Dissabte, 17 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >> On 09/17/2011 04:30 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >>> A Dissabte, 17 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >>>> On 09/16/2011 11:

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

On 09/17/2011 04:30 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Dissabte, 17 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >> On 09/16/2011 11:46 AM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >>> A Dijous, 15 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >>>> With the currently on

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

On 09/16/2011 11:46 AM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Dijous, 15 de setembre de 2011, Sebastian Trüg vàreu escriure: >> With the currently ongoing split of kdelibs and kde-runtime according to >> KDE 5.0 frameworks Nepomuk has already partly been reorganized: >> >> kdelib

Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > Hey Sebastian > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Sebastian Trüg <mailto:tr...@kde.org>> wrote: > > With the currently ongoing split of kdelibs and kde-runtime according to > KDE 5.0 frameworks Nepomuk has alre

Nepomuk code moved to nepomuk-core

With the currently ongoing split of kdelibs and kde-runtime according to KDE 5.0 frameworks Nepomuk has already partly been reorganized: kdelibs/nepomuk and most parts of kde-runtime/nepomuk have been moved into the new repository "nepomuk-core". kdelibs master has already been frozen for some tim

Re: Requested Moratorium on hard to build dependency bumps for KDE 5

On 06/07/2011 01:41 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote: >>> Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE >>> development proces

Re: Requested Moratorium on hard to build dependency bumps for KDE 5

On 06/06/2011 10:51 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: >> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote: >>> Next KWin. It currently depends upon Mesa 7.10. I have a local revert >>> in a private local branch which reverts the dependency check cod

Re: Requested Moratorium on hard to build dependency bumps for KDE 5

Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable if SDO were in KDE's git... On 06/06/2011 06:53 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday, 6 de

Re: Moving nepomuk-system-tray to kdereview

On 05/26/2011 10:11 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> On 05/26/2011 07:33 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >>> A Thursday, May 26, 2011, Christoph Feck va escriure: >>>> On Monday 17 January 2011 22:29:18 Artem Serebri

Re: Moving nepomuk-system-tray to kdereview

On 05/26/2011 07:33 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Thursday, May 26, 2011, Christoph Feck va escriure: >> On Monday 17 January 2011 22:29:18 Artem Serebriyskiy wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> I would like to move Nepomuk-system-tray from playground to kdereview >>> Currently project is: >>> project >

Re: Backwards compatibility for shared desktop ontologies?

On 05/17/2011 12:48 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Sebastian Trüg wrote: > >> First off: I think the system does work. IMHO I am not the only one only >> thinking about these dates shortly before they arrive. Thus, the hard >> freeze is there to have time to fix issues like

Re: Backwards compatibility for shared desktop ontologies?

pre-nepomuk versions do not count as they will compile anyway. :) On 05/17/2011 12:24 PM, Christoph Feck wrote: > On Tuesday 17 May 2011 12:08:50 Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> KDE-PIM < 4.7 is another problem as it does not build against kdelibs >> 4.7. But then again: who does that

Re: Backwards compatibility for shared desktop ontologies?

On 05/17/2011 03:22 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday, 17 de May de 2011 12:08:50 Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> KDE-PIM < 4.7 is another problem as it does not build against kdelibs >> 4.7. But then again: who does that? > > That means breaking source compatibility. If yo

Re: Backwards compatibility for shared desktop ontologies?

My comments as I am the one who introduced the break: First off: I think the system does work. IMHO I am not the only one only thinking about these dates shortly before they arrive. Thus, the hard freeze is there to have time to fix issues like these. But that is just my personal opinion. As for

Re: QZeitgeist and Phonon

OK, now I get it. So you in fact create one new resource for each activity/app/resource combination. So how does this work if I want to get a score over all apps, ie. the most important files in the current activity? BTW: We are encoding apps as NAO::Agent() instances in the data mangement servic

Re: QZeitgeist and Phonon

Hi Ivan, sorry for the late reply. On 03/08/2011 07:18 PM, Ivan Cukic wrote: >> You mean you have one resource which relates a resource to an activity >> and has a score and an application? >> >> Could you elaborate, please? > > In essence, the relation is (resource, application, activity)* and

Re: QZeitgeist and Phonon

On 03/08/2011 08:58 PM, todd rme wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> >> >> On 03/08/2011 09:53 AM, Ivan Cukic wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> First of all, one thing to mention - KDE apps are not advised to use >>>

Re: QZeitgeist and Phonon

On 03/08/2011 12:13 PM, Ivan Čukić wrote: >>> Sebastian concluded that storing all the events in Nepomuk wouldn't be >>> wise, so it was agreed to store them in Zeitgeist which was designed with >>> that sole purpose. >> >> to be precise: I wanted to test storing all in Nepomuk first which I >> hav

Re: QZeitgeist and Phonon

On 03/08/2011 09:53 AM, Ivan Cukic wrote: > Hi all, > > First of all, one thing to mention - KDE apps are not advised to use > QtZeitgeist directly because that way the 'tracking' has no idea about the > activities. > > File/resource tracking (and thus rating) should be per activity - as an

Re: Usage of pull rebasing and merges

Hi Ben, thanks for clarifying. :) Another point to add to my growing list of git tips. Cheers, Sebastian On 02/08/2011 10:08 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >> could you please elaborate on this. I do not unde

Re: Usage of pull rebasing and merges

Hi Ben, could you please elaborate on this. I do not understand the problem at all. What is so bad about rebasing and what is wrong with the commit you mention? Cheers, Sebastian On 02/08/2011 09:20 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a word of warning, if you are going to merge two bran

Re: Policy on git feature branches

On 02/01/2011 01:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 01.02.11 13:05:49, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> On 02/01/2011 11:11 AM, Andreas Pakulat wrote: >>> On 01.02.11 10:21:01, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >>>> Hi list, >>>> >>>> I have been working on an im

Re: Policy on git feature branches

On 02/01/2011 11:11 AM, Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 01.02.11 10:21:01, Sebastian Trüg wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> I have been working on an improvement for Nepomuk via git-svn for a >> while now and would now like to push it to kde-runtime. > > If the branch has be

Policy on git feature branches

Hi list, I have been working on an improvement for Nepomuk via git-svn for a while now and would now like to push it to kde-runtime. However, I would prefer to keep the commit history and backport to 4.6. Thus, I thought of pushing my feature branch into the kde-runtime repository and then merge i

Re: [PATCH] Re: KDE 4.6.0: go or no go?

On 01/20/2011 03:18 PM, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > This patch does in no way solve the issue. Let me give some detail here: I only did see the disabling of Strigi which makes no sense. I am fine with disabling the KRunner plugin for now. But AFAIK this only is a problem in combination with Akon

Re: [PATCH] Re: KDE 4.6.0: go or no go?

This patch does in no way solve the issue. On 01/20/2011 02:00 PM, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Wednesday 19 January 2011, Dirk Mueller wrote: > >> so the general consensus seems to be against slipping the schedule and >> inserting a RC3. >> >> This means that we need to solve bug 246678. Given that

Re: Hidden KDED desktop file crashing systemsettings - where to fix?

On 11/02/2010 09:26 AM, Jonathan Marten wrote: > Dear all, > > Since it got committed to trunk a few days ago, the new activity > manager (kdebase/runtime/activitymanager) crashes the "kcmkded" > systemsettings module: > > ASSERT: "file.desktopGroup().readEntry("X-KDE-ServiceTypes") == "KDEDModul