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...