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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: MICO 2.2.6
From:       Stephan Kulow <coolo () itm ! mu-luebeck ! de>
Date:       1999-05-03 14:07:50
[Download RAW message or body]

Leon Widdershoven wrote:
> 
> David Faure wrote:
> >
> > Hey, do you realise what you are saying ?
> > mico-2.2.3 has been around for a long time, and switching to mico-2.2.6 is
> > required now, or within a short time.
> > But qt is evolving MUCH MUCH faster. One needs to update qt every two days
> > these days. I have no problem with it, but if you want to complain about
> > 'having to stay on the bleeding edge and to download newest libs very
> > often', then complain about qt, not about mico !
> 
> In my first mail I explicitly separated development branches (pre-alpha,
> alpha,
> beta) from release versions. In my opinion, there are no rules for
> non-release software. E.g. there are no rules for Qt2.0 CVS.
> The only release Qt is Qt 1.4x and that's around for quite a while, I
> think.
> 
> The point I wanted to make was this:
> Think before you demand a certain version of a certain library. Every
> demand
> you make will decrease the number of people who will use it.
> This does not mean that you cannot make requirements (using KDE requires
> a computer,
> for example), but think if it is really necessary to have a specific
> version.
> 
> The reason I wanted to make this point is the following: My Linux
> release came
> with a different mico version, and at the time I wanted 2.2.3 it was
> quite
> difficult to find this version (2.2.5 was more easilly obtained, as I
> remember
> correctly). I can imagine for a "newbie" user it would be quite
> difficult
> to search for a certain release, try to compile it and install it, and
> of course hoping it would not break anything (for example the
> installation
> as done by the distribution).
> As I said, all this is not an issue for a development branch, like
> koffice,
> but it _is_ for a release version.
> 
Well, back to the topic: could we please depend on 2.2.6? I hope,
that most things can be fixed :) But I would like to have namespaces
and speedy compilation.

Greetings, Stephan

-- 
As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
Microsoft have nothing to worry about.  
                       By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online

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