On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote: > El Mi?rcoles, 6 de Octubre de 2004 22:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:31:49PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote: > > Again, the unreleased status of the software does NOT mean the wishlist > > bug should be closed. It is a reasonable wishlist bug, and the current > > state or release status of the implementation is NOT RELEVANT and NOT > > justification to close the bug. > > The unreleased state of the project, means a lot if you can't put the > necessary information in the copyright file.
The unreleased state of the product does not mean a wishlist bug is not appropriate. When there is code, there will be the necessary information to put in the copyright file. If there is a license problem, it will have to be resolved, but that does not invalidate a wishlist bug for the functionality. > > > and that doesn't have any relation with kdebase. > > > > My impression was that kecko was to be an alternate rendering engine for > > the konqueror browser that could be built alongside or as an alternative > > to the KTHML engine from KDE source. How does that have no relation to > > kdebase? > > Because the port is code related to mozilla, not tot KDE. Konqueror has the > feature of embedding plugins (java, flash, etc.) but asking its mantainers to > package those plugins, doesn't makes sense. As you note below, the port *is* code related to KDE, specifically a KPart that will eventually be available from the same source. This wishlist bug is for the inclusion of said code in the konqueror package, or another KDE package alongside it, enabling me to use the konqueror browser with the Gecko rendering engine in addition to KHTML. > > My impression is that it would be an option when compiling KDE, not a > > standalone package. Hence I filed the bug against the relevant KDE > > component (to me as a user, anyway) rather than as an RFP. > > > > If kecko will be _separate_ source package that isn't built from KDE > > source, then reassigning to wnpp and retitling as RFP would be > > appropriate - but as I said my impression was that it would be a part of > > the KDE source (albeit one that depended on Gecko). > > It needs two components: a KPart, and the Qt port, as the new you posted > explained. [snip] > Anyway, latest news: > > http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/666 > > So _today_ (not Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:21:47 -0700, when you first reported the > bug), it seems that there is the first code available. I checked it out, and > at least now we can say that there is a license and copyright holder(s), but > it is a combination of MPL/GPL/LGPL, so it can be complex. But again, as I > said, it's code unrelated to KDE. > > Still there is no code for the KPart needed. It's very probable, that it will > be commited to the kdenonbeta module, and, when it fits the KDE release > schedule, will be moved to kdebase. > > Then, at that moment, but not before, if the packages of that version of > konqueror in Debian, doesn't include support for embedding gecko, a wishlist > will make sense. No. At that moment may make sense to think about *implementing* the feature in Debian. The wishlist bug is appropriate at any time. > This is my point, and I hope you understood it. I can sympathize, but you should not impose your opinion on Debian in conflict with our practices. > Anyway, I'm not the mantainer > of this package, neither a Debian developer, so if have more information to > add, don't reply to me, do it to the bugreport only, please. I am a Debian developer, and I have never heard nor seen documented the conditions you state are necessary for a wishlist bug. On the contrary, wishlist bugs are commonly used to request features in _any_ state of completion, even those for which there is no code or even an idea before the wishlist bug itself. The BTS developer documentation at http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities states that wishlist bugs are appropriate "for any feature request", not "requests for features already released upstream". -- _ivan
