[KDE/Mac] Re: KDE vs Macports (Was: trouble with snow leopard)

[Mike McQuaid]

On 4 January 2011 14:08, Steven Britton <stevencbritton at gmail.com> wrote:
> To the first point regarding KDE-dependent packages being broken on
> the Mac environment, it seems to me that given KDE is designed as an
> environment in which to run dependent applications, when the dependent
> applications don't run, someone (not necessarily you, but someone)
> should probably look into it.  If I had more dev experience myself, I
> might even do it myself, and when I'm finished the objective-C stuff
> I'm doing, I might.

They aren't broken on Mac, they are broken in Macports.

> Maybe KDE can/should be ported into Objective-C, as a fork.  As
> Objective-C seems to be designed as the native Apple dev language
> through xCode, it would make sense to me to do so - and yes, I realize
> that would mean a departure from the main KDE trunk.

It would take a full-time development team literally years to do so.
You can use bits of Objective C with Qt but Qt will always be the main
development framework.

> To the second point (and while this may come across as defensive, it
> isn't being written from a defensive point of view) I came to this
> mailing list on the advice of a response to a message I posted on the
> KDE forums regarding my issue.  I think that there's a problem there:
> if the people on the KDE forums are directing "end-users" to this
> list, but those subscribing to this list don't want "end-users" here
> looking for help, but want to use the list for dev work, then someone,
> somewhere has misunderstood the point of this list.

Agreed, I think it would be a good idea to correct the forum on this.
Feel free to point me to the correct place and I'll do so. That's not
defensive, that's helpful, thanks :)

> The solution, of course, would be to return to the kde mac-specific
> forums and talk to people posing questions/asking for help in more -
> shall we say, "trivial?" issues, and then, as you get to know the
> people active in the forums, if someone seems serious about the dev
> aspect, then invite them, privately, to a private mailing list that
> isn't general public knowledge in the forum, or, if it become general
> knowledge, then make it abundantly clear that the mailing list is
> invite-only and specifically for dev work, NOT "support."

I don't think we need it to be private or invite only but this should
probably be a development list.

Thanks!

-- 
Mike McQuaid
http://mikemcquaid.com