Sounds great. Though I'm sure you've thought of it, maybe have one of those "notes" that dpkg uses when a user install libqt-gl, saying VERY LOUDLY that they'll have to change the linking option for any qt-gl apps, and emails it to them if they have their priority level too high. Other than that (and the fact that my home desktop can't install 2.2 yet, missing kdelibs3 >=4:2.2-cvsfoo-1 in unstable) and I'm *really* liking this new kde :-) I've been running the alpha at work for the last week (from people.debian.org), and aside from konq's tendency to wonk out at seeminly random places once a day, it's very nice. Please keep up the good work!
Many Thanks, D.A.Bishop On Wednesday 27 June 2001 17:57, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > Ok...so with kde 2.2 mostly uploaded (some bits already installed) to sid I > turned focus to QT again especially since I've personally had many crashes > of konsole due to the whole GL bit. > > so this lead me to a immediate solution. I still do not like this solution > however this is one that I am comfortable in sticking with if a proper > one does not arise before woody's release. > > so your asking...what's the solution??? > > well...a libqt2-gl package...but not like before. I have created a > completely seperate source package (qt-x11-gl) which builds 2 packages: > libqt2-gl and libqt-gl-dev. The actual qt library it creates also has been > changed. Instead of it providing /usr/lib/libqt.so.* I've renamed the > library to libqt-gl so that it can co-exist with a normal (non-gl'd) qt > library. > > So..what does this do for everyone you might ask? > > allows packages that do not need the GL bits of QT to not have to deal > with a library with them compiled in nor the issues surrounding QT + GL + > threads. (short answer on this...flash plugin works, no more konsole > crashes, etc...) This also allows for applications that do need GL support > to still exist within the distribution. (oh yea..and the pure_virtual > problems *should* go away) > > > So..what's the drawbacks you might ask? > > 1: (obvious) yet another package (well 2)...not really that big of a > deal 2: anyone who wants their package to link to the GL'd version of QT > *must* modify their build process to link to libqt-gl instead of libqt. ( > "-lqt-gl" instead of "-lqt") > > Overall I think this will be a good solution until someone comes up with > another better solution. I'm sure I'll get several bug reports from people > saying their GL based apps broke and then I'll hear them gripe when I tell > them they need to install libqt-gl-dev and modify their source. > > any major issues before I upload the new packages? > > Ivan
