lucy-ples at mtu-net.ru
Wed Sep 11 06:13:38 BST 2002
On Monday 09 September 2002 6:44 pm, Neil Stevens wrote:
| On Monday September 09, 2002 07:37, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
| > 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?
| KDE cannot maintain any credibility in its promise to keep binary
| compatibility if it breaks for KDE 3.1. Obviously Trolltech doesn't care
| of Qt has any credibility BC-wise, butt as far as I can tell KDE
| developers are in still agreement that KDE must keep binary compatibility
| as long as possible.
Binary compatibility is an issue (problem) in the MS Windows world.
Until Qt 3.x.x is source-compatible with previous releases, I do not see any
I upgraded my KDE/Qt via packages (RPMs) about 20 times, within last 2 years.
And no any majr problem, so far.
Every time I install new kdelibs, RPM reminds me that I need newer Qt (if I
need new Qt)
New Qt3 is just 2.5MB download, much smaller than kdelibs or kdebase.
So, where is the problem?
| So go ahead, don't fix the moc breakage. But what is Trolltech going to
| do if people are forced to choose between Qt 3.1 and KDE 3.1? Which has
| more users?
What do you mean "to choose between Qt 3.1 and KDE 3.1"
KDE runs on top of Qt so far :-)
| - --
| Neil Stevens - neil at qualityassistant.com
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
More information about the kde-core-devel