Hi all, I just want to comment on one thing:
> [14:30:15] <DxSadEagle> steveire: you're basically saying we should > favor hypothetical Qt developers over actual KDE app developers. Apart from the fact (as far as I understood the discussion) that Steve isn't favoring one over the other but rather trying to give the hypothetical Qt developer some of the benefits actual KDE app developers have, I want to make a confession: I am one of those hypothetical Qt developers. I have used one KDE class in a Qt-only project and to be able to do so I had to remove quite a lot of code from said KDE class because I really didn't want a dependency on KGlobal, KConfig, KStandardDirs, etc. Because of the pain using KDE classes in Qt-only projects causes I have only used this one class. Another class I/we are using comes from the Qxt extension library. This class could be used out-of-the-box. I wish I could use some of KDE's great Qt extensions with similar ease. KDE frameworks appears to be the solution for this. So, I, as one of those not so hypothetical Qt developers (who happens to be a KDE developer as well, btw), am all for making the KDE libraries more modular and more easily usable in Qt projects. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.