QProcess vs K3Process

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 04:35:28PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 28 May 2007, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > >> Ack. This is a good idea. Probably kutils, though, since we
> > >> already have a library for that extra stuff.
> > >
> > >uhm, maybe. note that this will pull in libutil and libutempter,
> > >though.
> > 
> > I don't think it's a problem for libkutils. It's very far down the
> > chain.  Not many things use that library anyways.
> 
> Well I wanted to get rid of libkutils because its reason for existing
> disappeared when the trader moved to kdecore, but I guess "stuff that
> needs additional 3rd-party libs like libutil" is a good new definition
> for libkutils...
> 
i had another thought on why this "dumping ground" idea just feels
wrong:
why do we split it off in the first place? to gain performance.
so why should applications that need *one* additional lib be penalized
by having to link *all* of them? this just does not make sense.

so obviously, i'm stil for creating libkpty.
note that this won't happen until kdelibs (or at least kdecore) is
k3process-free (i don't think we want circular dependencies :).

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.