[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?



On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 01:55:31AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I couldn't find a good mail to reply to in the KDE thread, so I figured
> I'd write a new one and set a relevant subject while I was at it :)
> 
> The license issue seems controversial at least.  Personally I would
> be willing to assume an implicit exception for Qt in the KDE license,
> except that the KDE developers refuse to add that exception explicitly.
> They've had ample opportunity.
> 
> But the other point I wanted to mention is that we may not want to
> distribute these KDE binaries at all.  They're version 980312-8, which
> by now is very outdated.  I think we'd look silly releasing those while
> everyone is still talking about the 1.0 release.
> 
> So maybe the technical issue can defuse the philosophical one :)
> By the time slink is ready, Harmony might be usable.
> 

I think this is ok. (total remove of kde)

But please remove the dfm-binary (or all dfm-files) in all crontrib
distributions (hamm and slink):

 this should not problem, because no package depend on dfm and dfm is a 'new'
 package.

 I am the dfm-maintainer und I will pack a new dfm package for the next
 release.

Grisu

Attachment: pgpapFriJ3E0K.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: