Rant: So you want help?
thomas.friedrichsmeier at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Fri Nov 5 16:27:44 CET 2010
On Friday 05 November 2010, Patrick Spendrin wrote:
> Also we invested quite some time into this, which would be totally
> useless if we chose to stay with one compiler.
just for clarification (once again):
I do not advocate changing anything about compiler support in emerge. I can
absolutely see the merit of having several compilers, there.
I do advocate changing something about the end-user side of things, i.e. the
KDE windows installer. And of course about the barriers towards creating a
> The compiler discussion is old already, and it won't be solved any time
> soon. So let's try to focus on the other problems first.
Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party. But BTW, if I'm not mistaken this is
another example of a discussion that should have been had on the list, instead
of behind the scenes.
Anyway, so what about the more moderate variant of my suggestion: Chop the
installer (and release) into different *independent* incarnations, one for each
compiler. At least it would make it easier to break up the monumental task of
creating a release into something more managable.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-windows/attachments/20101105/2c67aa6b/attachment.sig
More information about the Kde-windows