| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely |
| 3 |
> offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt. |
| 4 |
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE |
| 5 |
users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler |
| 8 |
and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are still just a few packages that |
| 9 |
relies on Qt 4 right now. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Still, I'm not for the idea of just putting qt to mean Qt 3 and discard Qt 4 |
| 12 |
until it's "the chosen one", not only for a compatibility reason with |
| 13 |
migration from older version, but also because we do have people using gentoo |
| 14 |
for KDE 4 development (I happen to know a few of them), and they need Qt 4 |
| 15 |
support. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I want to save both of them, asking a little bit more work for the developers, |
| 18 |
as they usually know what to do, rather than for users, which might as well |
| 19 |
be half clueless. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Did I explain this long enough, or should I demonstrate again that I don't say |
| 22 |
stuff just because I have a mail client and a GPG signature? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 26 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives