Upgrade to Qt 4.5

[Matthew Woehlke]

Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> I was considering distributions which ship binary packages.

Right. In that sense, I agree with you.

> Yes, and, last time I checked, cmake had no "make uninstall", so it's possible 
> that some renamed files are still kept in the installation directory. But I 
> think that this cleanup, or fresh start, etc., can be done without 
> correlation with a new Qt version.

Of course, and I occasionally do it with no such reason. Big qt-copy 
changes are just a handy excuse :-).

>> In some (less common) cases, things may be *genuinely broken* if
>> the 4.4 code is used with 4.5.
> 
> I can think of the workarounds that Plasma developers had to do with graphics 
> view and the differences between 4.4 and 4.5, true, but I think that this are 
> the exception, not the rule.

I agree.

> Sorry if someone felt insulted by my words. I tried to be clear and firm in my 
> position, but not attacking at all.

No worries, as long as you don't mind that I stand firm in my position 
also :-).

> I just wanted that people used rationality and common sense: if a
> rebuild was _needed_ (and that's the word David used and that made me
> feel forced to reply), unstable/development binary distribution 
> branches could not exist the way they do.

I think we agree in general. Is a rebuild *needed*? Usually not. Is it 
*beneficial*... well, it can be, sometimes :-).

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
"943. I am not Bjorn of Borg."
  -- from 975 things Mr. Welch can no longer do in an RPG
http://theglen.livejournal.com/16735.html

___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management:  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.