glib dependancy in KDE3.x

Adam Treat manyoso at
Thu Mar 6 07:24:36 GMT 2003

On Thursday 06 March 2003 05:12 am, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Am Thursday 06 March 2003 10:36 schrieb Rob Kaper:
> > On Thursday March 6 2003 10:24 am, Alexander Kellett wrote:
> > > i'm 100% for the addition of glibc therefore.
> >
> > glibc != glib, though. ;-)
> >
> > I am against using glib in KDE. We could've used Gecko, too, when it was
> > ten times better than kfm. If you can't do anything useful in C without
> > glib, perhaps C is not what arts should use?
> You can hardly compare glib usage with gecko usage seriously. glib is a
> very thing layer on top of what C offers.
> I have nothing against requiring glib actually. When I see the tons of
> duplicated stuff in the arts module it shudders me.
> If KDE is about practical solutions prefered over political solutions, then
> requiring glib is the correct thing. Please look into what glib provides
> before you make your assumptions.

How will depending upon Glib alter the portability of KDE ... if at all?  Some 
folks from the kde-cygwin project are working on porting some of the KDE apps 
to cygwin ... and then we have to consider that KDE targets the BSD's.  If it 
doesn't impact the portability in a negative way then I fail to see the 


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list