Fwd: Re: Switching to QtTestLib for unit tests

[David Faure]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 17:01, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 14:57, Harri Porten wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm not that big of a fan of the LGPL either. If GPL libraries in
> > kdelibs are fine with everyone we should definitely consider
> > dual-licensing new KDE code this way, too. From selling commercial
> > licenses we could tremendously support our development.
> 
> I also have my problems with GPL library in kdelibs even though it's just 
> there to simplify dependencies. I think it should be in kdesupport if possible
> in any way and make check should do nothing if the lib isn't available. I'm 
> sure there are people going to complain, but life is hard and then you die.

Moving qttestlib to kdesupport only means a higher percentage of KDE developers
won't bother to write or check the unit tests in kdelibs. I don't think unit tests are
optional. They are vital, especially for kdelibs development.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with a GPL lib in kdelibs, especially when it's 
not GPL-only, i.e. it doesn't prevent commercial development.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).