rokrau at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 22 15:24:01 UTC 2001
I think it is not a good idea to make kdebase a requirement for
kdevelop. The parts of kate that are essential for us (an improved
kwrite/ktexteditor part) should move into kdelibs where they belong.
kate itself can then stay in kdebase.
Additionally, the kate fileselector window is quite impractical 9my
opinion only), but I have heard that konqui's treeview is being made
into a kpart and _that_ could be a real interesting kpart to use since
it would allow real file operations. Why reinvent the wheel?
--- Ralf Nolden <nolden at kde.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21. August 2001 15:01, you wrote:
> > BTW: I think in the long run we (or the kate guys) should make a
> kpart from
> > it so we don't need a complete copy of the treeview in the Gideon
> > sourcecode. We only need a small wrapper so it looks like a Gideon
> > or?
> I still don't know how we can resolve the dependency we have against
> then. We could make kdebase a requirement for compiling kdevelop, but
> I'm not
> sure if that is the ultimate solution currently....it *is* really a
> struggling. The only solution I can think of which would be
> reasonable would
> be to move kate out of kdebase and make it its own module. What's
> and Christoph's opinion on that ?
> > Ciao!
> > Sandy
> We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
> Ralf Nolden
> nolden at kde.org
> The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project
> http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org
> to unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> kdevelop-devel-request at kdevelop.org with the following body:
> unsubscribe »your-email-address«
In the garage of life there are mechanics and
there are drivers. Mechanics wanted!
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
More information about the KDevelop-devel