the right home for Phonon

Alex Merry huntedhacker at
Thu May 15 23:12:55 BST 2008

On Thursday 15 May 2008 20:17:38 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > Open questions:
> > a) should kdelibs 4.1 contain libphonon or should it depend on an
> > external libphonon?
> I'd say that kdelibs should depend on libphonon from kdesupport. May bring
> more users for phonon.

Either way, we have the same issue with possible clashes between the Qt-
release of libphonon and the KDE-release of libphonon, right?

I think kdelibs just has to say "we need libphonon at least version x", but 
not care if it came with Qt or was built separately.

The issue is only if we want to depend on a version of libphonon that is more 
recent than the version shipped with the Qt version we depend on.  Then we're 
asking packagers to (a) build Qt without phonon support (b) build phonon 
separately and (c) in the future, probably do the same with QtWebkit.

That's how I understand the situation, anyway.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list