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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Ideas [?]
From:       Charles Samuels <charles () altair ! dhs ! org>
Date:       1999-11-25 3:20:38
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Rob Kaper wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 06:17:47PM -0800, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > Everyone is running on different C and C++ libraries, some will have a
> > different version of QT and the KDE libs, and they're all using a different
> > package format, like deb, rpm, pkg (wherever that went), tgz's etc.
> 
> And surprisingly everything works most of the time! ;-)

Ok.. you got me there! :)

> 
> No seriously, you are definitely right that a single distribution point of
> libraries and such can have a great advantage here. However, I'd have
> serious doubts if KDE would come with it's own libstdc. I can handle
> kdesupport as it is, in fact it beats Gnome's "install 40 apps before you
> will even find out it gnome-libs compiles this time" system. But quite
> frankly, I _like_ ./configure && make && sudo make install a lot.

Not come up with our own, but just package a standard GNU's libstdc, that we
link everything to.
But what does the average user want?  Not to have to compile things left and
right.  Most users don't want that extra few MBs of gcc on their disk.  Then of
course, most of us have Pentium 2 300's, not Pentium 133's or less.  Try
compiling KDevelop on those.
This isn't what KDE is about.

> 
> > More so, there would be a lot less bugs related to these libraries for the
> > developers (us, ok.. maybe not "me", yet :) since everyone will run the same
> > library versions.  Imagine, only one executable package that any distribution
> > can run without a hitch.
> 
> Sorry if I rant a bit too much against this idea, but what makes you think
> everybody wants to run the same things and versions? Should we all get the
> same hardware as well? (that would really make things easier!)
It would, but this isn't quite the same ;)

> 
> I'm also a bit confused. I get the impression you are talking about binary
> distributions of KDE. In that case, it's not so hard for Linux distributions
> to compile their packages for whatever they use. The user doesn't even need
> to care. Let alone have to do "the ritualistic ./configure;make;make
> install".
I'm not saying the base KDE, I'm saying other little dodads that you find.  And
yes, it'l certainly help to build base KDE like this, but that's not my intent.

> 
> > Here's a URL that might interest you:
> > http://www.linuxbase.org
> 
> I'm all for Linux Base. But I do think it's the task of the distributions to
> get together and make some agreements on package formats, library versions,
> etc. And not for KDE to decide or force upon users/distributions.
Of course, but wouldn't KDE have the upper hand if they were ahead if the game?

> 
> Rob
> -- 
> Rob Kaper | mail: cap@capsi.com + cap@capsi.cx
>           | web: http://capsi.com/ + http://capsi.cx/
>           | "We continue to be guided by the most basic American values:
>           |  innovation, integrity, serving customers, partnership, quality,
>           |  and giving back to the community." -- Bill Gates of Microsoft

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