From kde-core-devel  Sun Mar 09 08:59:01 2003
From: Neil Stevens <neil () qualityassistant ! com>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 08:59:01 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: glib in kdesupport: yes or no?
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=104720041723150

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday March 09, 2003 12:42, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:

[Snip irrelevant politics]

> Thus, the only question to judge for whether or not I put glib-2.0 in
> kdesupport seems to me: "is it practical to do so".
>
> For me, its extremely unpractical, because I already have a distribution
> that gets glib-2.0 for me, and also includes pkg-config, and I don't
> want two versions. Thus, I think it might be inconvenient for a lot of
> other developers as well, due to the same reasoning.

For some of us, it's impractical for KDE to depend on glib at all.  Putting 
glib in kdesupport makes it less difficult for some of us, should you add 
that dependency.

> And if you still think KDE and GNOME are seperate projects, and for that
> reason don't want to install glib-2.0 on your system, I think you're
> keeping up the illusion that KDE and GNOME are working on different
> goals. They are not. Thus, this is no valid reason for me.

For some of us, your aims to make an inconsistent, least-common-denominator 
amalgam of GNOME and KDE are not valid reasons to add a new dependency to 
KDE 3.2.

- -- 
Neil Stevens - neil@qualityassistant.com
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
 -- Gandhi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+awJVf7mnligQOmERAnh6AJ9bTvqNlHRG2bcWqnFRLeJAOOeScACeIpDD
8cqJf0Pw/aF7IKJm8DeokTM=
=m0G4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----