| 1 |
On Tuesday 09 October 2001 11:43, you wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sorry I was unclear, I was wondering what "feature"-changes there were |
| 3 |
> between the two. Or are they the exact same just distributed with |
| 4 |
> different licenses? |
| 5 |
That's right. Up to qt-2.x (not sure which) there were separate packages, |
| 6 |
qt-x11-free, -proffesional and -enterprise. They were unified into qt-x11 |
| 7 |
which allows you to install a license file. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Ok, didn't know the full name was qt-x11 (thought that someone named it |
| 10 |
> so in portage to make it more clear that it was the x11-build). What |
| 11 |
> this had to do with GNOME I dunno and why it would ever be called GDE. |
| 12 |
GDE=Gnome Desktop Environment. I just gave an example of unnecessary |
| 13 |
shortening of names, a bad one :-). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Hmm .. if ebuilds will always just be used for KDE i can't see why it |
| 16 |
> should be added to portage. I think that if it works fine (which it |
| 17 |
> seems to do) and is accepted to be part of portage it should be utilized |
| 18 |
> wherever appropriate and IMHO it sounds like it would be in the examples |
| 19 |
> discussed above. |
| 20 |
Of course eclasses can be used verywhere - the more the better - it's just |
| 21 |
that they are most fitted for kde apps. You know best about gnome apps. As |
| 22 |
for pure qt apps, they may profitably inherit e.g. base.eclass. But there are |
| 23 |
very few non-kde qt apps (just 2 or 3 in portage that I can think of). So as |
| 24 |
I said, non-kde use won't be extensive, unless for gnome, about which I don't |
| 25 |
know anything. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dan Armak |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team |
| 31 |
Matan, Israel |
Archives