knoopix tool using qt/Win Free Edition@freenet.de

[Steven Boothe]

Ralf Habacker wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 13:36, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> 
>>Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>last week I met Klaus Knopper the initiator of the well know KNOPPIX
>>>linux distribution. He told me that he currently uses a delphi
>>>application for creating image files anmd swap files on an ntfs
>>>formated  drive. Because of the commercial delphi IDE  he feels
>>>uncomfortable to release the original source under gpl. While we a
>>>talking about qt/win he asked if it would be possible to write a qt
>>>gpl'ed application doing this job. So I took some time and wrote a
>>>static linked application, which wasn't a real problem.
>>>
>>>When this application will be release, it will be seen by many people
>>>and will be a good change to do place some marketing for the free qt
>>>library, so I added a info page about the the qt/Win Free Edition.
>>>While doing so, I stumbled again about the project name KDE-Cygwin for
>>>the qt library, so my thoughts were again if it would be better to us a
>>>more descriptive name like Dave Bronsemas project on
>>>http://qtwin.sf.net. I'm thinking about either redirecting the webpage
>>>directly to qt3-win32 or to move all qt related parts like qt-3 related
>>>webspace, cvs qt-3 subdir to this project to give it a descriptive home.
>>>
>>>Any comments ?
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Ralf
>>
>>WE HAVE got the only FREE windows Qt of version 3.x. So all information
>>is in the name Qt3 Win/Free although there will be Qt4 Win/Free from
>>Trolltech. Why not reuse or create a sf project with such a name and move
>>all code to this project?
> 
> 
> yes for example the above mentioned project qtwin. 
> 
> 
>>One question is, should such project only cover Qt3 or also stuff for
>>Qt4 which is not provided by Trolltech?
> 
> 
> I think like Steven sayed it should cover both and should be a uniq source for 
> non-trolltech stuff. 
> 
> 
>>Therefore we should first find the final name of our Qt and then looking
>>for the right place.
> 
> 
> If this project covers qt3 and qt4 qtwin seems to be the right name . 

I agree that seems like a good idea. Then we could make the obvious 
references to the appropriate resources at qtwin in the requirements and 
instructions for installing KDE for cygwin. How does that sound?

But how would we go about reclaiming the qtwin project space in SF? Or would 
it be feasible to use a different name like qtwin32 or something just to 
start fresh? Actually it would be preferable to keep qtwin if possible in the 
event that we are faced with the opportunity for a 64-bit option in the 
future(!?). :)