different variants means it isnt standardised. Recompiling
for each egcs-1.1.2/gcc-2.95/rhgcc-2.96/gcc-3.0.x/gcc-3.1 is also a problem
right now on the C++ side.
Of course.
For the LSB there must be one answer and an answer that will continue to
work for some years.
Of course, I agree with you
also a problem
right now on the C++ side.
For the LSB there must be one answer and an answer that will continue to
work for some years.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020426 12:08]:
> Let me be more clear:
> State1: You compile KDE and non-KDE applications with Qt2, as the
> standard library.
> Everything works and qt2 is in "/usr/lib/qt-2.3.1/lib"
> State2: There are a new library: qt3.
> Again, qt2 is in: "/usr/
Preston Brown wrote:
The main problem here isn't Qt being unstable, it is the C++ abi being
unstable. Compile Qt 2 (or 3, whatever) with GCC 2.95 and GCC 2.96, and
you get two very different (and incompatible) libraries. Ditto between
GCC 2.96 and GCC 3.0, and unfortunately GCC 3.0 an
The main problem here isn't Qt being unstable, it is the C++ abi being
unstable. Compile Qt 2 (or 3, whatever) with GCC 2.95 and GCC 2.96, and
you get two very different (and incompatible) libraries. Ditto between
GCC 2.96 and GCC 3.0, and unfortunately GCC 3.0 and GCC 3.1. 3.1 is
sup
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020425 12:54]:
You need to ship qt3 linked libraries ... but also includes qt2 libs.
Is important to note that while in the previous generation (QT2
generation), the qt lib was actual qt2, now qt lib will be qt3.
Theref
* Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020425 12:54]:
> You need to ship qt3 linked libraries ... but also includes qt2 libs.
>
> Is important to note that while in the previous generation (QT2
> generation), the qt lib was actual qt2, now qt lib will be qt3.
>
> Therefore is you remove
Alan Cox wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but as a KDE developer (well, not a very good one ;)=
),=20
I've been rather confused at some of the things being said in this thread=
=2E=20
What exactly does "Qt getting a stable API" mean?
Between Qt 2 and Qt 3, the API used for programming changed very l
Joseph Carter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:27:37PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
Eric Raymond help Troll people to design its QPL license.
He did? This is news to me.
This link is the confirmation I found. (I also read it in other place).
http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-in
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but as a KDE developer (well, not a very good one ;)=
> ),=20
> I've been rather confused at some of the things being said in this thread=
> =2E=20
> What exactly does "Qt getting a stable API" mean?
>
> Between Qt 2 and Qt 3, the API used for programming changed very li
Matt Taggart wrote:
Alan Cox writes...
KDE standardising needs to follow Qt getting a stable API (maybe Qt3 does
this). What do Troll tech think
Well we had hoped to talk to them about it before going any further. We
know they are pretty sick of dealing with license issues (as is everyone
> So does this violate the "no-strings-attached" rule? Unlike the GPL it
> _is_ possible to create propriatary versions but at a cost. Where do we
> draw the line?
I think it crosses the line
Second question - suppose troll feel their ABI is stable and want to
create something outside of the LSB
Alan Cox writes...
> KDE standardising needs to follow Qt getting a stable API (maybe Qt3 does
> this). What do Troll tech think
Well we had hoped to talk to them about it before going any further. We
know they are pretty sick of dealing with license issues (as is everyone
I'm sure). In the min
l tech think
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but as a KDE developer (well, not a very good one ;) ),
> I've been rather confused at some of the things being said in this thread.
> What exactly does "Qt getting a stable API" mean?
>
> Between Qt 2 and Qt 3, the API used for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 8:51 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> > A distribution can both be LSB conforming, and ship with KDE libraries.
> > It's just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
> > applications cannot link to them dynamically.
ld be a Bad Idea - I
think only the base toolkits (GTK and Qt) should be considered for the
immediate future at least (1-2 years).
Havoc
This is right. However, 1-2 years I suppose is a lot of time.
Following Matt considerations ...
-
The solution to the C++ problem is for vendors to
> A distribution can both be LSB conforming, and ship with KDE libraries. It's
> just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
> applications cannot link to them dynamically.
Unlesss they include the kde packages in case.
KDE standardising needs to follow Qt getting a stable
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:28:46PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Because libgnome* and libkde* are much less mature APIs, they're quite
> large and sprawling, and they aren't really needed in order to write
> reasonable applications.
Whereas Qt and GTK+ 2.0 have a much more limited scope and
Gael Duval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As a random note, adding libgnome* and libkde* would be a Bad Idea - I
> > think only the base toolkits (GTK and Qt) should be considered for the
> > immediate future at least (1-2 y
Havoc Pennington wrote:
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As a random note, adding libgnome* and libkde* would be a Bad Idea - I
think only the base toolkits (GTK and Qt) should be considered for the
immediate future at least (1-2 years).
please explain why you think that.
Gaël
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:13:45PM -0400, Stuart Anderson wrote:
just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
s/not/now/
right now, KDE is *now* a part of the LSB? ;-)
Gaël.
--
< Gaël DUVAL - Founder Mandrake Linux >
< Co-Founder, Mandra
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If the LSB does define additional libraries, it might be worthwhile to
> bundle them in optional subparts of the LSB. For example, if GNOME 2
> were defined in the LSB, packages requiring GNOME 2 might depend on
> lsb-gnome2. Similarly, KDE 3 might
[Trimmed debian-devel from the CC list]
On Apr 22, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:13:45PM -0400, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> >
> > just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
>
> s/not/now/
If the LSB does define additional libraries, it might be worthwhile
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:13:45PM -0400, Stuart Anderson wrote:
>
> just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
s/not/now/
;-)
Cheers,
Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Gael Duval wrote:
> If I understand correctly, since most Linux distros ship with KDE libs, an
> exception here would be extremely helpful for all.
A distribution can both be LSB conforming, and ship with KDE libraries. It's
just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
C++ "instability":
May this lacks be solved? ... Or is a theorical C++
problem without
solutions ?
The solution to the C++ problem is for vendors to adopt
soon-to-be-released GCC 3.1 as their system compiler. The
LSB will be
adopting "The
C++ "instability":
> >>May this lacks be solved? ... Or is a theorical C++
> problem without
> >>solutions ?
> >>
> >
> > The solution to the C++ problem is for vendors to adopt
> > soon-to-be-released GCC 3.1 as their system compi
or libraries that aren't specified by the LSB. Since C++
(and thusly any library that uses C++) isn't yet included in the LSB,
the application will have to bring those libraries along with it.
> Don't forget that there will be Free Software authors who wish to
> distribute L
Matt writes:
> Software vendors that develop proprietary applications that use Qt can
> still enter into a licensing agreement with Troll Tech and bundle the
> required libraries and files with their application.
I see no reason why they could not also enter into licensing agreeements
with TT that
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:52:42PM +0200, Gael Duval wrote:
I know we're talking about standardizatoin, on the technical
side. Anyway, one thing is IMHO very bad for Linux, it's the
KDE/GNOME fratricid wars. I was very happy they didn't happen
anymore for months. Now I'm af
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:45:23PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
Matt ... Do you have any ex
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:45:23PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
Matt ... Do you have any ex
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:52:42PM +0200, Gael Duval wrote:
> I know we're talking about standardizatoin, on the technical
> side. Anyway, one thing is IMHO very bad for Linux, it's the
> KDE/GNOME fratricid wars. I was very happy they didn't happen
> anymore for months. Now I'm afraid we have her
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:45:23PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
>
> Matt Wilson wrote:
> > If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
> > C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
> > the LSB.
>
&g
Gael Duval wrote:
Matt,
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:29:07PM +0200, Gael Duval wrote:
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
If I understand correctly, since
Matt,
Matt Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:29:07PM +0200, Gael Duval wrote:
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
If I understand correctly, since most Linux distros ship
application-specific library directory.
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
If I understand correctly, since most Linux distros ship with KDE
libs, an exception here would be extr
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:29:07PM +0200, Gael Duval wrote:
> >
> > If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
> > C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
> > the LSB.
>
> If I understand correctly, since mo
to rush the KDE libs ahead if the C++ support isn't
there to support it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side."
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
Would KDE be excluded based on this immaturity ?
Thanks,
Giovanni
Any C++ app is problematic today.
This went somewhat
library directory.
If you're talking about including KDE in the LSB, yes - this lack of
C++ ABI stability will block any C++ library from being included in
the LSB.
If I understand correctly, since most Linux distros ship with KDE libs, an
exception here would be extremely helpful fo
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:07:56PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
The ABI (Application Binary Inteface) for
>
> I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
>
> Would KDE be excluded based on this immaturity ?
>
> Thanks,
> Giovanni
Any C++ app is problematic today.
T
Previously Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
>I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
>http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
The C++ ABI is still evolving and changing every few gcc
ted to them; however, since there is a backlog, they will meet
weekly or semiweekly to get caught up.
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/lsbreview.html
Sorry for the delay. I appreciate everyone's contributions and encouragement.
Hi Everyone,
I want to understand why the specific said: "
45 matches
Mail list logo
