> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Timothy Pearson > <kb9vqf@...> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Darrell Anderson >>> <humanreadable@...> wrote: >>>>> > This should be cleared. Are we >>>>> going to port trinity to qt4 or don't. >>>>> > There are users in the IRC channel who ask about this, >>>>> and I don't >>>>> > really know how to respond, since it isn't clear to >>>>> myself. >>>>> > For what I understood: we won't port trinity to Qt4, we >>>>> will add >>>>> > possibility of using qt3 and qt4 together. Is this >>>>> correct? >>>>> >>>>> This is correct. At one time there was a desire to >>>>> port to Qt4, however >>>>> months of solid work showed that Qt4 cannot provide the >>>>> features needed to >>>>> create a fast, efficient desktop geared towards >>>>> mouse/keyboard interaction >>>>> and high on-screen information content. >>>> >>>> Okeydokey, but then what is the purpose of TQt? >>>> >>> You mean TQt, which is pretty much the same as Qt3 but with Q* objects >>> translated to TQ*. >>> >>> What I'd like to know is purporse of tqtinterface. >>> >>> Initially I understood it was created to facilitate porting to qt4, >>> without having to rewrite much of the tdelibs/tdecomponents code. But >>> now, that there are no plans for Qt4 port, what is it needed for, >>> except as compilation dependency? >> >> It currently allows you to select Qt3 or TQt3. Without it the TQt3 port >> would not have been possible. >> >> Tim >> > Ok, another question: if I use and compile against TQt3, do I still > need tqtinterface? Or can I drop it? > I'm asking it as a packager for archlinux. I'd like to minimize the > dependency chain that is needed to obtain working tdebase. > This is one of the things I don't like about kde4. You need a lot of > (in my opinion) libraries, and underlaying components in order to get > working desktop. > > For me, it would be optimal to have only qt3 and tdelibs (+ some minor > things like dbus-tqt) in order to be able build/use tdebase. That > would require some sort of pull-in/replacement of arts (which is my > opinion a strange creation, and should be replaced/segmented at some > point, because it tries to do too many things together) and other > works, which I cannot even image atm, since I'm not familiar with > trinity architecture enough. tqtinterface is here to stay. It still abstracts a few niggling problems with Qt3/TQt3 and provides flexibility when dealing with future Qt3 updates/changes. Tim