ettrich at trolltech.com
Mon Sep 9 15:37:23 BST 2002
On Monday 09 September 2002 15:44, Thomas Zander wrote:
> This kind off throws out the concept of binairy compatability in KDEs major
> versions; I can't run a product I bought from a 3th party developer on a
> machine with Qt < 3.1 (if it has the need for Qt3.1)
> Seems a logical constraint for an application; but upgrading is not enough,
> you need a newly compiled kdelibs agains that version of Qt :(
> How can we tell those developers we promised BC during the whole KDE 3.x
> series that even before 3.1 is released the BC is being broken allready;
> "Sorry not our fault!" ??
> If nothing else; its a really big PR problem.
Thomas, try thinking of Qt as a KDE library. What you are talking about is to
upgrade e.g. libkdecore or libkfile without upgrading the other libraries
that depend on it. May work, or may not work. Typically we treated kdelibs
as one package that has to get upgraded together.
AGAIN: it's NOT binary compatibility that is the problem here.
There are three scenarios:
1 the user that upgrades binary packages: works
2 the developer that upgrades kde and qt from sources: works
3 the developer that only uses Qt from source and KDE from binary
packages and wants to develop KDE applications: does not work.
Who's 3? And why?
Rob, before you call to the arms, let me confirm you that the moc change was
done on purpose and will very soon be of great benefit for the free software
community. Yes, we could take it out, but what for?
More information about the kde-core-devel