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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Putting my money where my mouth is
From:       Mosfet <dan.duley () verizon ! net>
Date:       2003-02-24 19:39:37
[Download RAW message or body]

Okay, well we will see how things go ;-) As for the current situation things 
are incompatible, even with a standard C++ ABI. 

Feel free to push for more standards in regards to binaries, that is 
definitely a good thing, but doesn't really address what I am working on now. 
You are talking about future improvements that hopefully will happen and will 
require cooperation from several different vendors.

On Monday 24 February 2003 1:30 pm, Tim Jansen wrote:
> On Monday 24 February 2003 16:33, Mosfet wrote:
> > Personally I have very little faith in any of this. Even on Linux/Intel
> > systems you still have people like RedHat making binary incompatible
> > changes to Qt. There goes your standards ;-)
>
> But the situation is a little bit different now. If RH is not binary
> compatible to the rest of KDE, who cares? You need to create RPMs(debs etc)
> for each platform anyway. But if there is a single format for easy software
> solutions on all other distributions, and a few authors use it, the
> situation will be completely different. Because then using RH will be a
> noticable disadvantage for the users, and I am pretty sure that enough of
> them would complain.
>
> > And of course this is only addressing Intel systems.
>
> Yes and no. You can create such standards for all platforms. Of course not
> every author will be able to create binaries for every platform, but I
> would be confident that the offered binaries reflect the market share of
> the platforms (in other words, 95% of all binaries will be Linux/x86, and
> 95% of all users use Linux/x86).
>
> > As far as styles are concerned I do not see a problem with people
> > installing the style first using apt, RPM, or whatever and then bringing
> > up the theme manager to set it. This seems pretty straightforward to me
> > and a lot better than the current situation where people have to go all
> > over KControl to set them.
>
> As long as you don't mind to create package for every distribution, and in
> the worst case, for every version that is still in use. Maybe you have
> enough users who contribute binaries, but I guess for most authors this is
> a huge problem (including me :).
>
> > If we ever do want to skip the RPM step I think we'd have better luck
> > trying to compile source tarballs, at least for styles which are rather
> > small. Really, what is more portable than source code and a good autoconf
> > ;-)
>
> 1. Most distributions don't install development headers by default. This
> means that the user must go and select a loong list of additional
> packages... 2. As you said, it will not be very nice for larger apps...
>
> bye...
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kde-usability mailing list
> kde-usability@mail.kde.org
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]