Qt 3.2 requirement

[Ralf Nolden]

On Montag, 28. Juli 2003 16:20, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Monday 28 July 2003 13:25, Chris Howells wrote:
> > If I'm not mistaken, GTK/GNOME already support Indic languages, and I
> > think it's pretty pathetic if when KDE 3.2 is released we don't have
> > decent support for them, because we _should_.
>
> Yes. We should support and probably also require Qt 3.2 for the KDE 3.2
> release. All I'm trying to say is that we should be very careful about when
> and how we introduce the _requirement_ for Qt 3.2, i.e. when we give up
> support for Qt 3.1.x.
>
> > > trouble it causes for application developers who are forced to upgrade
> > > Qt without gaining anything.
> >
> > I would agree to an extent, but if the developers are using CVS HEAD then
> > the least of their problems should be compiling a new Qt.
>
> If all goes well it costs some hours to compile it. We can save many
> developers this time, if we wait until the major distributions provide
> binary packages.

Hmm Cornelius, as much as I like *not* to hassle with the underlying system, 
it was *never* a problem to switch to a new Qt version. It even wasn't when 
we switched to Qt 3.0 so we could make use of the long release cycle for a 
binary compatible Qt with KDE.

The issue I see here is only that you have those three scenarios:

- people running HEAD -> no problem for them to switch to Qt 3.2
- people running KDE 3.1.x -> how does Qt 3.2 affect that ? I still didn't get 
a complete answer on exactly *WHAT* does not work correctly when upgrading to 
Qt 3.2 on a KDE 3.1 machine. That is what should be fixed and therefore 
#ifdef's in KDE_3_1_BRANCH for backports of fixes that go into HEAD to work 
with Qt 3.2. That makes users happy while we can use 3.2 with HEAD 
automatically. Also people can install Qt 3.2, KDE 3.1 and HEAD, all on the 
same machine.

- people running KDE 3.1 and HEAD -> see above

So from my perspective it is *better* to switch to Qt 3.2 in HEAD and fix any 
known issues with Qt 3.2 in KDE_3_1_BRANCH ASAP.
 
If you still don't have  Qt 3.2 packages for SuSE, kick Adrian :-)  I'm 
working with Madkiss to get Qt 3.2 into Debian unstable ASA I know where the 
problems with KDE 3.1 *really* are as there is no way Debian unstable can 
provide two binary compatible libraries at the same time without some very 
good reason not to upgrade. That is, if Qt 3.2 doesn't get into unstable then 
Hindi support in KDE under Debian is non-existant by default.

Ralf

>
> > > It's a frustrating experience, if you want to quickly fix a bug and
> > > then realize that you first have to compile a new version of Qt, before
> > > you can test your fix. This costs us developers.
> >
> > If you're running CVS HEAD, you have to compile KDE regularly.
>
> That's already a problem. No need to make it even worse.


-- 
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden at kde.org

The K Desktop Environment       The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org              http://www.kdevelop.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030728/6d027133/attachment.sig>