glib in kdesupport: yes or no?
stefan at space.twc.de
Sun Mar 9 09:18:43 GMT 2003
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:59:01AM -0800, Neil Stevens wrote:
> For some of us, it's impractical for KDE to depend on glib at all. Putting
> glib in kdesupport makes it less difficult for some of us, should you add
> that dependency.
Instead of saying there are reasons, I'd like you to raise your concerns.
Claiming that "for some us there are reasons" is not enough for me to gain
an adequate understanding of what these reasons actually are.
I think lots of dependancies for KDE have been hidden inside Qt. There are
copies of a few free software projects in qt-copy/src/3rdparty and kdesupport.
However, these are for sure not all dependancies that KDE does have. You need
a C and C++ compiler installed, the STL, automake, autoconf, a shell, and
quite a few other tools.
Thus, the question is: is glib-2.0 commonly available? I'd say so, but I am
not sure whether it is really the case.
> For some of us, your aims to make an inconsistent, least-common-denominator
> amalgam of GNOME and KDE are not valid reasons to add a new dependency to
> KDE 3.2.
Think again. Have I acted in the past irrational, inconsistent, with the only
intension to hurt KDE and GNOME and/or create something that doesn't work,
just for the sake of something else? Does aRts not work?
Please give me a valid reason, then. Until now, I have only heard such reasons
exist, but I have not yet found one. But maybe my understanding of the world
is too limited, and if that is so, I would be wholeheartedly thankful, if
you would let me know where I am wrong.
-* Stefan Westerfeld, stefan at space.twc.de (PGP!), Hamburg/Germany
KDE Developer, project infos at http://space.twc.de/~stefan/kde *-
More information about the kde-core-devel