Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Obviously as it is now qt4 will be the main lyx 1.5 frontend. But
as you all now, with great powers come great responsibilities.
Abdelrazak> First news!
The second sentence or he first?
first.
Concerning the first, depending on what happens qt3 may be a main
toolkit too...
Completely redundant... especially so if we "freeze" qt4 features.
Abdelrazak> Obviously, the only logical decision to take now is to
Abdelrazak> declare qt3 deprecated then.
Not sure.
And you will never be.
Abdelrazak> I don't care if it removed or not from SVN but I won't
Abdelrazak> touch one line of it from now on.
This is where I disagree. We are not discussing the terms of a divorce
in front of lawyers. When I found problems with qt4 menu checked
boxen, I fixed them, because I knew how to do that. Not being a victim
of the old developers cabal does not mean be a lone cowboy.
I am not talking about simple bug or compilation fixing. I am talking
about API cleanup. There's much thing to do in this area, like it or not.
Abdelrazak> The only sane approach is then to provide two packages:
Abdelrazak> one statically linked to Qt4.2 and one dynamically linked
Abdelrazak> to it.
Abdelrazak> This way, KDE4 users will enjoy sharing the same Qt4 with
Abdelrazak> LyX. For non-KDE4 user there is absolutely no drawback to
Abdelrazak> use a statically linked LyX except for a few additional
Abdelrazak> megabytes in memory.
Three points:
1. who is going to do that? I still got no offer.
You mean autotools, scons or cmake support for static linking?
I think we can find some volunteers. Bo, Peter, could you make this
option possible for scons and cmake please?
If autotools support would be accepted I can investigate the issue.
I don't know anything about rpm and apt but you will help me right?
Why presuming that something is not possible just because you have no
clear offer? People need directions as to how they could contribute.
2. when proposed more liberty about qt4, your first reaction is to
demand 4.2 only (which will probably become 4.3 only by the time
1/5 is released)
So what? I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying above. When
statically linked, the user don't care if it is 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3. The
latest, the better.
3. As Edwin said "there is no free lunch".
ditto.
Too much thinking kills the thinking (sic). You are dismissing any
decision just because you are afraid of potential problems that might
appear in the future. I say let's take some clear decisions right now to
freed ourselves from these endless discussions.
Abdel.
