On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Harri Porten wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> >> > we could end up wit
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Harri Porten wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> >> > we could end up with a "new kdelibs" module that contains just the
>> >> > core st
On Wednesday 09 February 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Harri Porten wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> > we could end up with a "new kdelibs" module that contains just the
> >> > core stuff such as kdecore, kdeui, kio ..
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Harri Porten wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> > we could end up with a "new kdelibs" module that contains just the core
>> > stuff such as kdecore, kdeui, kio .. there could be requirements in
>> > there about allowable de
On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Harri Porten wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > we could end up with a "new kdelibs" module that contains just the core
> > stuff such as kdecore, kdeui, kio .. there could be requirements in
> > there about allowable dependencies between those libr
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
we could end up with a "new kdelibs" module that contains just the core stuff
such as kdecore, kdeui, kio .. there could be requirements in there about
allowable dependencies between those libraries.
[...]
the big change here would be that applications
On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> I can remember that a point of criticism about gnome was that it is hard to
> get it built correctly with all the relatively small independent libs.
> I think we are moving in that direction...
> Are we aware of this and is this ok with us ?
On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> On 2/1/11, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 01.02.11 19:49:10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >
> > No, the natural fix is to make the dependency chain proper, i.e. KTE
> > depends on kdelibs, khtml depends on KTE+kdelibs. That means khtml
> > canno
On 2/1/11, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 01.02.11 19:49:10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> No, the natural fix is to make the dependency chain proper, i.e. KTE
> depends on kdelibs, khtml depends on KTE+kdelibs. That means khtml
> cannot be part of kdelibs anymore if KTE is not part of kdelibs anymore.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
wrote:
> Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 19:39, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
>> On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
>> >> And I'm not sure there should be
>> >> such a thing.
>> >
>> > Hm. You don't agree that a user experience like
>> >
>>
On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 01.02.11 19:49:10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > A Dimarts, 1 de febrer de 2011, Ian Monroe va escriure:
> > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 21:19, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > oh well, KTextEditor isn't an option,
> > >
> >
On 01.02.11 19:49:10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Dimarts, 1 de febrer de 2011, Ian Monroe va escriure:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 21:19, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > > oh well, KTextEditor isn't an option,
> >
> > Should we give up so easily on this? The whole point of modulariz
A Dimarts, 1 de febrer de 2011, Ian Monroe va escriure:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 21:19, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> > oh well, KTextEditor isn't an option,
>
> Should we give up so easily on this? The whole point of modularization
> is to remove cross-module dependencies, just like KHT
Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 20:14, Alexander Neundorf a écrit:
> On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 19:42, Alexander Neundorf a écrit:
> > > On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > > > Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 18:
On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 19:42, Alexander Neundorf a écrit:
> > On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > > Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 18:53, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
> > > > On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kosseb
On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> We can't assume for all, but in many installations the user does. Like the
> ususal private computer.
> For administrated systems, there could be a substitute which instead of
> allowing to install rather aids the user to file a request to the adm
Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 19:42, Alexander Neundorf a écrit:
> On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 18:53, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
> > > On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > > > Uh, that is old-fashioned. Should instead ask the
On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2011, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 01.02.11 01:18:58, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > > Alle martedì 1 febbraio 2011, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto:
> > > > > The concern that I have, on the other hand, is whether this can be
> > > >
Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 19:39, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
> On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> >> And I'm not sure there should be
> >> such a thing.
> >
> > Hm. You don't agree that a user experience like
> >
> > "Sorry, missing X to do Y. Would you like to get X now for that?"
On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2011-02-01, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
...
> > Yeah, and because of this requirement, which I can agree on, I didn't
> > remove it from kdelibs, as its public API and I wanted to be SC + BC. And
> > no, runtime components moving to othe
On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 18:53, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
> > On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > > Uh, that is old-fashioned. Should instead ask the user whether she
> > > wants to install the proper text editor module.
On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
>> And I'm not sure there should be
>> such a thing.
>
> Hm. You don't agree that a user experience like
> "Sorry, missing X to do Y. Would you like to get X now for that?"
> is better than one à la
> "Na, no way to do Y."?
Yes. since we
Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 18:53, Sune Vuorela a écrit:
> On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Uh, that is old-fashioned. Should instead ask the user whether she wants
> > to install the proper text editor module. Isn't there some simple
> > standard api for that these days?
>
> A
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 21:19, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>[snip]
> oh well, KTextEditor isn't an option,
Should we give up so easily on this? The whole point of modularization
is to remove cross-module dependencies, just like KHTML depending on
KTextEditor. Ideally this sort of "sideways" dependency
On 2011-02-01, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> perhaps we should think about being more clear in our runtime definitions a=
> nd=20
> stricter with requiring apps to advertise their runtime expectations, so th=
> at=20
> we can go from having a huge pile of dependencies to just the requirements =
> for=20
On 2011-02-01, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Uh, that is old-fashioned. Should instead ask the user whether she wants to
> install the proper text editor module. Isn't there some simple standard api
> for that these days?
A simple standard api for what? installations of scripts and wallpape
On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> So far, we as packagers have been told that applications can expect all
> plugins (kio slaves, kparts, ...) located in kdelibs and kdebase-runtime
> to be available, and segfault is a acceptable way of handling missing
> things.
to boil it down t
Mardi, le 1 février 2011, à 16:43, Maksim Orlovich a écrit:
> > erf; two dependencies in kdelibs on KTextEditor. ok, that makes it a no
> > go then ... hm.. looking at it, only khtml has a build-time dependency
> > on it. if
> > the texteditor part isn't available (or the source of the crash even?
> erf; two dependencies in kdelibs on KTextEditor. ok, that makes it a no go
> then ... hm.. looking at it, only khtml has a build-time dependency on it.
> if
> the texteditor part isn't available (or the source of the crash even? :)
> what
> does the debugger do at that point?
Pop up an error mes
On 2011-02-01, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> So far, we as packagers have been told that applications can expect all
>> plugins (kio slaves, kparts, ...) located in kdelibs and kdebase-runtime
>> to be available, and segfault is a acceptable way of handling missing
>> things.
> I agree that this wi
On Tuesday, 2011-02-01, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:11:08 am Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > So far, we as packagers have been told that applications can expect all
> > plugins (kio slaves, kparts, ...) located in kdelibs and kdebase-runtime
> > to be available, and segfau
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:11:08 am Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2011-02-01, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > --nextPart3865859.bpjpIik9D5
> > Content-Type: Text/Plain;
> >
> > charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On Monday, January 31, 2011, Michael Pyne
On 2011-02-01, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> --nextPart3865859.bpjpIik9D5
> Content-Type: Text/Plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Monday, January 31, 2011, Michael Pyne wrote:
>> On Monday, January 31, 2011 17:42:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> > potential cav
On Monday, January 31, 2011, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 01.02.11 01:18:58, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > Alle martedì 1 febbraio 2011, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto:
> > > > The concern that I have, on the other hand, is whether this can be
> > > > done in a source and binary compatible fashion. I just took
On 01.02.11 01:18:58, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Alle martedì 1 febbraio 2011, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto:
> > > The concern that I have, on the other hand, is whether this can be
> > > done in a source and binary compatible fashion. I just took a look
> > > at
> >
> > yes, it can. and i don't believe a
Alle martedì 1 febbraio 2011, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto:
> > The concern that I have, on the other hand, is whether this can be
> > done in a source and binary compatible fashion. I just took a look
> > at
>
> yes, it can. and i don't believe anything in kdelibs itself uses it.
khtml does (but we
On Monday, January 31, 2011, Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2011 17:42:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > potential caveats are that it makes it harder to build certain KDE apps
> > because now you need not only kdelibs, but kate. this is already true for
> > things that require libs in kde
On Monday, January 31, 2011 17:42:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> potential caveats are that it makes it harder to build certain KDE apps
> because now you need not only kdelibs, but kate. this is already true for
> things that require libs in kde-support, kdepimlibs or kdegraphics, though.
This is mor
hi :)
since Ian already brought it up and suggested a separate thread for it, let me
do just that. we discussed this a bit on the release mailing list, but the
discussion really ought involve more people since it will impact us all.
the idea is this (and the Kate devs are just fine with it, btw
39 matches
Mail list logo
