Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Obviously, the only logical decision to take now is to
Abdelrazak> declare qt3 deprecated then.
Not sure.
Abdelrazak> And you will never be.
If it looks like qt3 can continue to serve its purpose, it should
continue. What I am not sure of, is whether we'll manage to do that.
I personally think people should concentrate on qt4 instead of
maintaining a completely redundant platform. But hey, they do what they
want with their free time.
Abdelrazak> Why presuming that something is not possible just because
Abdelrazak> you have no clear offer? People need directions as to how
Abdelrazak> they could contribute.
I did post a list.
I missed that then. Could you please repost in order to see what is
really involved and what is so different WRT qt4?
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)
Abdelrazak> So what? I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying
Abdelrazak> above. When statically linked, the user don't care if it
Abdelrazak> is 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3. The latest, the better.
This is not how linux distributions work.
Man, the linux distributions willing to do the packaging will do the
packaging and the distribution themselves. Users that are not on a
decent platform will either use our statically linked package or compile
from source. Period.
I am pretty sure that binary package formats (rpm and dep) work also
with statically linked binaries. rpm or dep source packages are _not_ a
problem.
3. As Edwin said "there is no free lunch".
Abdelrazak> Too much thinking kills the thinking (sic). You are
Abdelrazak> dismissing any decision just because you are afraid of
Abdelrazak> potential problems that might appear in the future. I say
Abdelrazak> let's take some clear decisions right now to freed
Abdelrazak> ourselves from these endless discussions.
Hey! When the time will come to actually do the work, you will be
happily working on the qt5 frontend (because qt4 is soo old), and the
1.5 stable release manager will have to handle the dirty work. Nice.
I am not dismissing any decision, I am proposing things that you do
not want to accept because you do not want to have any constraint.
That's not true, I am willing to accept some compromise (like 4.0 source
compatibility). But you are right, if it was only me I would go for the
latest and the greatest. I think that backward compatibility is a
disease that should not be on an open platform like linux. Can't you see
the absurd of the situation? "Closed" platforms are perfectly fine with
whatever we feed them but "open" platforms are not...
Maybe that if I said "let's stick to C++" you would say that you want
to go to Qt's new java toolkit...
That's not true. I love C++ and most of my work in this project was
about real C++. Besides, C++ doesn't provide a GUI toolkit so your point
is moot.
Abdel.
