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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Multimedia in KDE 3.5.8
From:       "Jos Poortvliet" <jospoortvliet () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-10-01 23:33:47
Message-ID: 5c77e14b0710011633k49c82a1dw425a46958c578f45 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 10/1/07, James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj@acm.org> wrote:
> Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > On 10/1/07, James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj@acm.org> wrote:
> >> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> >>> On 30.09.07 14:50:23, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> >>>> Andreas Pakulat wrote: We now have a very serious problem with
> >>>> the Adobe Flash NS Plugin.  The current release of GNOME breaks
> >>>>  this totally -- it is unusable.  Yes, this isn't supposed to
> >>>> happen, but it does.
> >>> Thats what you get for using proprietary software :P Seriously
> >>> though as far as I followed the thread this is something that
> >>> needs fixing in flash.
> >> It has nothing to do with it being proprietary.  Changes in GLib
> >> previously broke aRts.  I really think that the fault lies with
> >> GLib, but it could also be fixed in the Flash Player.  One thing
> >> that should be clear is that some how the binary compatibility was
> >> not preserved in GLib.
> >>
> >> The simple work around for such accidental binary incompatibilities
> >>  are to continue to use the latest version of the library that
> >> still works and either statically link it or link it with the
> >> specific version number.  Unfortunately, either method requires the
> >> source code.  With a binary, we have the Linux equivalent of
> >> DLL-hell.  We shouldn't have this problem because all of our
> >> dynamically linked libraries have version numbers.  If the SO
> >> linker had a way to map the linking of SOs when the default caused
> >> problems, we would have a solution for such problems -- problems
> >> that are not *supposed to* happen.
> >
> > Indeed. So, breaking BC sucks, GLib sucks, Flash sucks. Now why again
> >  are we wasting time on this?
>
> I suppose that it is because someone presumed that I was an idiot and
> tried to explain about binary compatibility.  This is why I say people
> are arrogant, they presume that others know nothing.  If you don't like
> the word 'arrogant', see the dictionary and note that in M-W that
> 'presumption' is part of it.

Sorry about that.

> > Let the distributions figure this out, it's not our fault
>
> In this case, this is true.  There is nothing that we can do about it.
> However, you will please note that I only used this as an example.  I
> did not suggest that we should fix it.

Ok, sorry. I was a it harsh...

> > and 3.5 is 2 years old, we got a 4.0 to release. Way more important,
> > imho. The more time we spend on 3.5, the longer it takes for 4.x to
> > get usable, and the longer ppl have to use 3.5 - which gets older,
> > thus gains more problems like this one.
>
> I have serious issues with this attitude.  We released KDE-3.5 and we
> should take personal responsibility for that.

yes, that's true.

> The remaining issue (see final posting for this thread) is the new XML
> based MusicBrainz.  I seriously doubt that the code to use it will be
> greatly different for KDE-4.0.0 vs. KDE-3.5.x.  But please note that I
> suggested that it should be resolved for KDE-4 HEAD first and then back
> ported to KDE-3.5 BRANCH.

Sounds like a good solution, if someone actually picks it up...

> --
> JRT
>
> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
>
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]