[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: checking for GTK and glib in configure.in.in ?
From:       Helio Chissini de Castro <helio () conectiva ! com ! br>
Date:       2003-08-05 11:05:09
[Download RAW message or body]

Oi Henrique..

Fazendo amigos ? :-)

Só não se assuste co o Coolo, porque ele é osso duro de roer mesmo. Não é ele 
que é meio mal educado contigo, ele é com todo mundo. Mas é natural. O 
pessoal já acostumou.

Eu to indo pra Nové Hrady, tu tens alguma coisa pra levar pra lá ( idéias, 
sugestões de tudo ). Tando lá, eu vou poder bater o pé junto com os caras..

[]'s 

On Monday 04 August 2003 21:02, Henrique Pinto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First of all, I must apologize everyone here for my involvement in the
> useless discussion this issue turned into.
>
> This is my last post to this thread.
>
> This thread started over as a question on how to check if GTK+ and GLib are
> installed. It is a legitimate question, and was referring, since them, to a
> "soft" dependency on these libraries.
>
> Then, James Richard Tyrer said:
> >I think that is reasonable to assume that many users have the libraries
> >that are needed to use The GIMP.
>
> In the way it was written, this is a true statement. Most KDE users are
> likely to have GTK+ and GLib "runtime libraries" installed in their system,
> but many do not. But it was referring to the development packages of these
> libraries, what made the statement untrue. Assuming that everyone has GTK
> libraries and development files installed means creating a hard dependency
> on GTK, what is unacceptable for KDE (I don't think this needs any
> explanation.)
>
> This has nothing to do with the original question of Reinhold Kainhofer,
> concerning the detection of the availability of GTK+ and GLib in
> configure.in.in, for a "soft" dependency.
>
> After this message, the thread became a flame war. Many skilled and
> recognized KDE contributors were offended, what is a shame for the KDE
> community (actually, getting involved in something such as this is also a
> shame, and because of that I beg the KDE community to forgive me for doing
> that).
>
> Some messages ahead, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 	"Probably because Zach, and others, want to have the last word rather than
> 	take responsibility for their errors.",
>
> what is a clear and personal offense to Zack Rusin, and to all the "others"
> he has mentioned. Words such as these are a discourtesy for the community,
> so we'd better stop this thread here.
>
> And my two last points:
>
> #1: James, I do not hate you, but I think your last attitudes are leading
> people to do so. I am not here to judge you, nor do I have competence for
> that, but I ask you to think about your latest words. You may find that
> some of them were unnecessary, and only caused bad things. This may, of
> course, be caused by cultural differences, but I don't think many people
> like the way (and the things) you write.
>
> #2: Stephan Kulow: yes, by re-reading all this thread for the 220th time, I
> found it to be really stupid, and I'm ashamed of myself for being involved
> in it. But the discussion was never on whether I would use or not the
> plugin. I did not said why I refuse to install GTK+, as this is a very
> personal thing and would only make this stupid discussion even more stupid.
> But creating a hard dependency on GTK+ for KDE, as proposed, was something
> I could not accept. Again, I ask you and the whole KDE community to forgive
> me for my last acts.
>
> Thank you all for reading this.

-- 
Helio Castro
KDE Developer
Development Conectiva S.A.
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]