post 3.3 kconfig_xt work

Maks Orlovich mo002j at
Thu Aug 12 16:53:23 BST 2004

On Thursday 12 August 2004 10:41 am, Benjamin Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 August 2004 10:20 pm, Maks Orlovich wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:08 pm, Benjamin Meyer wrote:
> > > I started putting together a small list of apps that don't use
> > > KConfig_XT, but before making an exostive list, has anyone else done
> > > this?  This repetative, but simple task might be a good thing to get
> > > for JJ.
> >
> > What bugs do you expect to fix through this process, or features do you
> > expect this to implement? I am pretty certain that you don't have a
> > concrete answer in mind,
> -Some apps have bugs open against them to convert their gui's to ui files
> for many good reasons.

which? I need to close them as INVALID since that's not the sort of thing 
users should be requesting.

> -Some apps look/behave differently then the rest of kde and have open bugs
> against them for their configure dialog. 

Again, which? 

> -Better kiosk mode integration, both in disabling widgets that can't be
> changed and in not storing settings when they don't change (A BIG deal when

I am pretty sure KConfig does that itself. And I remember the last time you 
did something like that with toolbars --- it tooks months to get them in 
vaguely working order, and for many people, including myself, one also had to 
do surgery on config files to recover. 

> -MUCH Easier to add/remove options to kde applications.

Questionnable, and some of the apps don't have maintainers. Who is gonna add 
the options?

> -Faster startup (due to), less memory usage, and shorter compile times in
> many cases (due to removal of junk code).

Do you have any numbers to back this up, in particular on the first 2 points? 
If you don't, you're just making stuff up.

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list