| 1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams |
| 4 |
>> port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend. |
| 5 |
> You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same. |
| 6 |
> gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a library of utility functions |
| 7 |
> too. Qt can be considered like gtk+glib, and that make things more complex. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
How does that matter in this context? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> As I said, I'd rather see two flags, qt3 and qt4, to identify the two |
| 12 |
> versions. A simpler alternative would be qt (defaults to 3) and qt4, but |
| 13 |
> that's going to be confused on the long run to something similar to gtk. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion. |
| 16 |
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thanks, |
| 19 |
Donnie |
Archives