Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2007 20:11 schrieb Peter Kümmel: > Do you think you-as a main developer of lyx- will > have problems to build Qt 4.x by your own?
No. > (I assume it's a question of your principles > because even I have mangaged to compile Qt4.2 > on linux, wasn't it ./configure & make? :) ) Something like that. The problem is not that the installation is too difficult, the problem is that I want to keep the number of packages I need to compile from source as minimal as possible. I already have a lot of these, and keeping them up to date is time consuming. And of course as soon as qt 4.2.3 is out LyX will require it, so I'll have to reinstall qt as often as a new version comes out. > Or do you only think about the packageing? > Then, yes, this could really become a problem. That is another problem. > Would it be possible to link Qt statically to lyx for > all people not having the Qt>4.2.1? Or is there to > much distro dependend stuff in a static linked lyx? Probably yes. E.g. some distros patch the locations of config files and similar things. But basically I don't want to care about this, this is the job of the distribution vendors. > (I assume you don't wanna link statically because > of the wasted memory.) And security fixes. I don't want to watch security bulletins and apply some patches, I simply want a apt-get update; apt-get upgrade and be done with it, because other people do the security stuff for me. I can tell you lots of bad things that happen with statically compiled applications (e.g. I need to set a numeric DISPLAY variable for one particular app, because it is statically compiled with some old X libraries that have a DNS problem). Shipping with statically compiled libraries is something for closed source applications that want to provide one single binary for all linux distros and versions. LyX is Open Source, and shipped as part of many distros, so it should use the system libraries. If LyX goes this route then without me, because it is completely wrong IMO. Georg
