[Bug 626122] Review Request: libqmf - Qt Messaging Framework

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122

--- Comment #17 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> 2011-05-13 12:28:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> [Upstream QMF developer here]
> 
> Just to add to the confusion:
> 
> There's two forks of QMF:
> * http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/messagingframework (What I call Qt-QMF)
> * http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/messagingframework (What I call
> Meego-QMF)
> 
> 
> Meego-QMF is rebased on a particular version commit of Qt-QMF (generally the
> weekly tags, but w/e suits their schedule) along with their set of commits
> (That adds stuff like libaccounts and tracker integration).
> 
> Going forward, I'd like to see this consolidated into a single library -- but
> for the time being that's not practical. 
> 
> But since you're packaging Meego-QMF, which is fine -- but calling it Qt-QMF
> would only add to the confusion. So maybe meego-qmf is a better name?
> 
> Regards,
> Eric

Hi Eric!
Thanks for clarification. So meego-qmf should be compatible with qt-qmf? If so,
we can ship meego-qmf as it adds some stuff and we can't have two nearly
exactly same conflicting libraries. The question here is - rename it to
meego-qt and after it's consolidated to one library move to qt-qmf? It's maybe
even a little bit more confusing :(

Guys, what do you thing? QMF is an optional dep now for a few packages, so we
should have it packaged...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.