>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all Lars> distributions have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a Lars> requirement to drop qt3. >> Yes. Among the distributions that are current today, how many ship >> a version of qt4 that qt4 developers would consider 'reasonable'? >> What is the minimal version? Is qt 4.1.0 enough? Abdelrazak> 4.1.0 will do fine yes but for speed I would recommend the Abdelrazak> latest. So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4 really good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they should not bother about LyX if their distribution is more than one year old? And I do not like bundling either. This whole stuff began because Qt4 was a must for supporting windows the way it deserves to be (or something like that). There has been a lot of work in this direction recently, in particular thanks to Bo's work, and I am glad to see that. But after seeing all these messages on how we should understand the specific needs of windows users, here is another one from linux users: The application should work with the same version of qt as the distrib's KDE. I agree 100% that using the latest and greatest qt4 in the binary distribution is the best solution for Windows and Mac. The situation is different with unix/linux, that's all. JMarc
