A.deGroot at cs.ru.nl wrote: > This describes OSOL pretty well, too. You realize that you need next > month's compilers and must hand-edit system headers to get -- example -- > C++ python bindings to compile, right? If you have a software monoculture, > handling configure is easy. All other cases: pain pain pain.
It's not my impression that OSOL's libc and headers are in as bad a state as glibc and a random Linux distro's headers. Ditto Studio Express and backwards compatibility. And isn't 'libc++' under control as well? Of course that leaves all of the other stuff like X11, databases and so on, which may be problemmatic. >>It beats me why KDE doesn't use qmake. Surely to build KDE, you must >>have qmake available? > > > If qmake could do what KDE needs - rc handling, cross-platform, automoc, > svg, xdg icon handling - it might conceivably be used. It doesn't, and we > use CMake. qmake may not handle them out of the box, but with a bit of effort, I'm sure that it'd be possible. A+ Paul
