Phonon - Qt or KDE?

Michael Pyne mpyne at
Sat Nov 12 02:05:34 GMT 2011

On Saturday, November 12, 2011 01:38:35 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2011 12:59:17 Trever Fischer wrote:
> > Since we can't just sit on this discussion, here's a list of pros and cons
> > I've made in the case of moving from KDE to Qt

I had honestly hoped this entire discussion would have petered out with the 
conclusion of "remaining in KDE infrastructure" by now since it's the only 
logical conclusion I can see based on past behavior.

We are, after all, talking about a so-called "Pillar of KDE" so there should 
really be a significant reason to pull Phonon out of KDE infrastructure.

For starters, I have to ask: Even assuming that being developed in Qt will 
pull in more Qt users (leaving alone the fact that in theory Phonon has 
*already been* part of Qt for years now)... how will that help KDE?

Likewise with CMake (and this is the one that boggles my mind ;): Are there 
/actually real people/ who refuse to use Phonon based on the lack of a qmake 
build system? It can't be Windows users either, they're pretty much just going 
to use the DLLs and skip the build issue entirely.

Unfortunately I'm not exactly in tune with the Qt-only community so I can't 
answer this myself, but I can't see how changing the URL of our infrastructure 
and mailing list and changing build systems would be the key enabler of Phonon 
usage. We already have many examples of libraries that are deliberately Qt-
only and yet effectively only used by KDE, at some point we're going to have 
to stop "throwing good money after bad"...

 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
kde-multimedia mailing list
kde-multimedia at

More information about the kde-multimedia mailing list