Qt 3.2 requirement

[Rob Kaper]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:33:28PM +0200, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> Marc, you couldn't be more wrong. I've been confronted to this situation many 
> times, both on my personal projects and at work. The *only* good reason to 
> support several versions of a library is because your users require it. 
> Otherwise you don't, because there's nothing but trouble there.

Forward, backward and akward compatibility is probably the number one user
request for any serious software project.

Yes, it's trouble, or at least will require more work, foresight and
insight. But that's why we are computer programmers: we create tools for
users often knowing they can not create those tools for themselves, and
since compatibility issues are important to users, we make that one of our
own priorities.

The question is not whether supporting multiple library versions is a good
thing. It is. The question is whether it is worth the effort. I'd say it is.

If we decide it's not, I'm all in favor of removing any admin/ hack that
causes more work to maintain and dramatically increases package sizes
(especially for smaller stand-alone projects).

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
cap at capsi.com | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030729/8a17941d/attachment.sig>