2015-12-05 15:49 GMT+03:00 Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@...>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 2015/12/05 04:33 PM, Fat-Zer wrote:
>> Hi I run into an issue when building tqt and tde without opengl.
>>
>> The build of tqtinterface fails with:
>>
>> === In file included from
>> /var/tmp/portage/dev-qt/tqtinterface-9999/work/tqtinterface/qtinterface/interface_tqt3/tqgl.cpp:23:0:
>> /usr/tqt3/include/ntqgl.h:83:21: fatal error: GL/glu.h: No such file or directory # include <GL/glu.h> ===
>>
>> As you can see it because GL/glu.h is not present on the system (which should be ok for non-opengl build). I don't
>> want to add yet another build time dependency only because of excess header which doesn't needed to produce any
>> code...
>>
>> AFAIK most of cpp files under the tqtinterface produce any useful code so they may be safely removed only slightly
>> changing the cmake files...
>>
>> What do you think about both the issue and future of the tqtinterface?
>>
>> PS: As I can see tqtinterface is a just a legacy by now, so may be it's better to rid of it completely?
>>
>
> For openGL, it looks like a bug, so the best would be to log this into the bugszilla system so it does not get forgotten
> .
>
> About tqtinterface, you raise a valid point. AFAIK, tqtinterace was introduced when TDE wanted to migrate to qt4 some
> time ago (even before I knew of TDE existance). The plan didn't really went anywhere since we lacked the manforce
> required for such huge task. On the other hand it made a lot of KDE3 applications no longer compatible with TDE and
> each update to qt3 needs to be duplicated (although automatically) to tqt3.
> IMHO, tqtinterface feels somehow unnecessary, unless there are other reasons I am not aware of (about which Tim or
> Slavek may know better). Removing it would reduced slightly the code base that requires maintenance and would simplify
> the steps required to integrate an old KDE3 application into TDE (probably some work would still be required, but a
> lot of the renaming is no longer needed).
>
> I am interested in knowing Tim's and Slavek's opinion. If we are to cast a vote, I would probably be in favor of
> removing tqtinterface, unless (as said) there are other reasons for it to exists.
>
> Cheers
>   Michele
>
So, I'd like to hear Tim's opinion too...