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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review