[ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
Harold et al., After a brief discussion this morning, Ralf has given me permission to package QT-2.3.1 and release it to the Cygwin community. I would like to have it under the XFree86 dir, since it is a fully native X library. This release has been throughly tested by us over on the KDE-Cygwin project, pretty much all the bugs have been stomped out. Note that QT does *not* require MIT-SHM [that is kde itself]. Furthermore, I fully intend and expect questions regarding Qt be redirected to the kde-cygwin mailinglist. We should probably update the mailing-lists page's policies to reflect this. My intention is not to inundate this list with Qt/Kde related issues. With the your's and the list's permission, I will package it up and provide the links ASAP. Cheers, Nicholas __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 05:05:52AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: Harold et al., After a brief discussion this morning, Ralf has given me permission to package QT-2.3.1 and release it to the Cygwin community. I would like to have it under the XFree86 dir, since it is a fully native X library. This release has been throughly tested by us over on the KDE-Cygwin project, pretty much all the bugs have been stomped out. Note that QT does *not* require MIT-SHM [that is kde itself]. Furthermore, I fully intend and expect questions regarding Qt be redirected to the kde-cygwin mailinglist. We should probably update the mailing-lists page's policies to reflect this. My intention is not to inundate this list with Qt/Kde related issues. With the your's and the list's permission, I will package it up and provide the links ASAP. Are you sure that we don't get licensing issues here? AFAIK, Qt is (roughly) only free when running on a free OS. Basically we're still running on Windows... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 22:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Are you sure that we don't get licensing issues here? AFAIK, Qt is (roughly) only free when running on a free OS. Basically we're still running on Windows... http://www.trolltech.com/developer/licensing/ Summary, 2.2 and later is QPL and GPL. They may not like it, or they may like it. Who knows. But... they can't stop it. Rob
RE: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
Well, remember also that the X11 version is licensed under the GPL, so it is fine. They do make some other versions that are not yet licensed under the GPL. The native Windows version used to be non-GPL, but I think I remember seeing something in the news about this changing a few months ago or something. Harold -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1 On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 22:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Are you sure that we don't get licensing issues here? AFAIK, Qt is (roughly) only free when running on a free OS. Basically we're still running on Windows... http://www.trolltech.com/developer/licensing/ Summary, 2.2 and later is QPL and GPL. They may not like it, or they may like it. Who knows. But... they can't stop it. Rob
RE: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
--- Harold Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, remember also that the X11 version is licensed under the GPL,
so it is
fine. They do make some other versions that are not yet licensed
under the
GPL. The native Windows version used to be non-GPL, but I think I
remember
seeing something in the news about this changing a few months ago
or
something.
Harold,
So is this a green light? I'll get started ASAP if it is. I was
thinking that the best bet would be to do like lesstif and put the
qt-2.3.1 tree under:
/usr/X11R6/qt-2.3.1/{bin, include, lib, doc}
What do you think?
Cheers,
Nicholas
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Re: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
Ralf,
Since KDE on Cygwin might eventually depend on this Qt package, why
don't you guys decide together what the best location would be?
I really have no idea where to put it, so I'm all for just putting it
somewhere and cleaning up the mess later when we learn what we did wrong.
The LSB doesn't specify a location for Qt, does it?
Harold
Ralf Habacker wrote:
--- Harold Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, remember also that the X11 version is licensed under the GPL,
so it is
fine. They do make some other versions that are not yet licensed
under the
GPL. The native Windows version used to be non-GPL, but I think I
remember
seeing something in the news about this changing a few months ago
or
something.
Harold,
So is this a green light? I'll get started ASAP if it is. I was
thinking that the best bet would be to do like lesstif and put the
qt-2.3.1 tree under:
/usr/X11R6/qt-2.3.1/{bin, include, lib, doc}
under suse linux Qt is installed normally under /usr/lib/qt-release with
symbolic link to /usr/lib/qtmajor_release or into /usr/lib (see below)
habacker@lxserver05:~ rpm -q qt3 -l
/etc/X11/qtrc
/usr/bin/qtconfig
/usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/bin
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/bin/qtconfig
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/etc
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/etc/settings
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/etc/settings/qtrc
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/lib
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/lib/libqt-mt.so.3
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.0
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.0.4
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/plugins
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/plugins/imageformats
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/plugins/imageformats/libqjpeg.so
/usr/lib/qt-3.0.4/plugins/imageformats/libqmng.so
/usr/lib/qt3
habacker@lxserver05:~ rpm -q qt-2.3.1 -l
/etc/qt.fontguess
/usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.2
/usr/lib/libqt.so.2
/usr/lib/libqutil.so.1
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt-mt.so
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt-mt.so.2
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt-mt.so.2.3
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt-mt.so.2.3.1
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt.so
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt.so.2
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt.so.2.3
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqt.so.2.3.1
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqutil.so
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqutil.so.1
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqutil.so.1.0
/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib/libqutil.so.1.0.0
/usr/lib/qt2
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/ANNOUNCE
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/FAQ
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/LICENSE.GPL
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/LICENSE.QPL
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/MANIFEST
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/PLATFORMS
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/PORTING
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/README
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/README.QT
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/README.SuSE
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/changes-2.3.0
/usr/share/doc/packages/qt/doc/changes-2.3.1
Ralf
Re: [ITP]: Qt-2.3.1
--- Harold L Hunt II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ralf, Since KDE on Cygwin might eventually depend on this Qt package, why don't you guys decide together what the best location would be? I really have no idea where to put it, so I'm all for just putting it somewhere and cleaning up the mess later when we learn what we did wrong. The LSB doesn't specify a location for Qt, does it? I thought the decision was that all X stuff should go under X11R6/, but I could have misinterpreted the thread. If not there, based on the LSB, I'd be inclined to stick in /opt, but if Ralf really wants to put it under /usr/lib then I'll do that. Ralf? Cheers, Nicholas __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
