Qt 3.1b1

Vadim Plessky 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 
problem here.
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

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
KDE mini-Themes

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list