| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 10:58, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 2 |
> ok; so in gtk-land we have gtk2 to prefer the newer interface whereas |
| 3 |
> the proposal for qt/qt3 is to have a specific flag for the older |
| 4 |
> interface. I do prefer the qt/qt3 approach, even though it's |
| 5 |
> inconsistent with what happens on gtk. I don't suppose changing |
| 6 |
> gtk/gtk2 to gtk/gtk1 would be popular... |
| 7 |
Please don't talk about "interface", Qt is way more than interface as I said, |
| 8 |
so talking about frontends and interface is misleading. If it was just |
| 9 |
interface, of course it would be possible to choose the best between Qt4 and |
| 10 |
Qt3, but this is not an interface problem, it's a bindings problem. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As I said, enabling just one between qt3 and qt4 in bindings would be like |
| 13 |
just having one of "pbindings" useflag, and every ebuild decides if it will |
| 14 |
provide python or perl bindings, just because they happen to start with 'P'. |
| 15 |
Qt3 and Qt4 are different enough to be considered different languages from |
| 16 |
some POVs, it does not make sense to treat Qt the exact same way of GTK, |
| 17 |
because it's not only a GUI thing. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 21 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives