glib dependancy in KDE3.x

Matthias Kretz kretz at
Fri Mar 7 17:25:55 GMT 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Friday March 7 2003 18:14, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> On Friday 07 March 2003 17:04, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> > In fact, I am convinced that some things should be implemented in C. And
> > I am convinced that some things are implemented best using a main loop.
> > Thus I'd say that a user which commits himself to the irrational policy
> > of using only C++ applications and only C++ code, for the sake of
> > attaining some higher goal that I don't know of, should not be supported
> > optimally by KDE.
> You can't be serious here. "irrational policy of using only C++" ??

Hey, he said "irrational policy of using only C++ applications". There's a big 
difference here. Because that is irrational... (well at least IMHO)

> > I think KDE should promote tolerance and understanding where we can, and
> > this is a place where we can promote understanding of what programming
> > languages and code sharing are really for.
> How about promoting a working, stable desktop and development platform,
> available in a limited amount of time ?

Sounds good is there anyone saying anything against that?

The question was if it's ok to depend on glib instead of copying glib into 
arts sources.
And so far I have not seen a single good argument for keeping the situation 
like it is now - except for those who think that this dependency will mean 
more work for them (I don't really count that as a "good" argument though :).

- -- 
Matthias Kretz (Germany)                          <><
MatthiasKretz at, kretz at,
Matthias.Kretz at
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list