On Wednesday 17 August 2011 08:16:37 Timothy Pearson wrote:

> >> Second: I was merely thinking out loud.  With trolls on this list
> >> apparently that is a bad idea; I will save my ideas for the meeting,
> >> where
> >> things have been more civil.
> >>
> >> Third: I do not need to break the existing KDE3.5.10 plugin, but over
> >> time
> >> it WILL break itself.  Good luck keeping it running when Qt3.3.8b won't
> >> even build anymore.
> >
> > Instead of accusing me of trolling here you better should recalll that we
> > use your
> > patched version of Qt3. They are API-wise backward compatible and there is
> > actually no need for rewriting anything that depends on purely Qt3.
> 
> API, yes.  ABI, no.

And API is what we need to have LO working.
 
> Qt3 has several flaws in it that have, over time, spawned nasty hacks in
> the original KDE3 (now Trinity) source.
> These hacks are a constant source 
> of consternation for our development team; they cause things to randomly
> crash or fail in a nonreproducible manner. 

No crashes for more than a year here.

> One of our goals is to add new 
> methods to Qt3 in order to clean up the hacks in the Trinity source,
> thereby stabilizing the system.

Good endeavor.
 
> One of the bugs causes a crash sporadically when the filter bar is used in
> icon mode.  The cause is a missing visibility set feature in QIconView. 
> The only resolution is to fix Qt3.  There are other examples, but I hope
> you get my drift.

Good. Is this patch already included in 3.3.8c?

> Regarding trolling, you did make a very strong accusation and threat to me
> earlier (regarding LibreOffice and contacting the dev team),

This is not threat, just a fact. If somebody will try to make contributions that 
break work of our desktop, we will complain. A similar situation happened recently
when the Gnome3 developer made a commit to the Suse settings 
that broke kcontrol.

> and very 
> strongly asserted that you want to keep KDE3.5.10, which is long dead,
> available.  

Is it trolling? By the way if Robert would advance in packaging Trinity we would
consider using Trinity now.

> Be careful what you say if you don't want to be judged. 

I just do not bother with your offenses.
 
> By the way, if you continue to use the Qt C++ namespace you will run into
> problems eventually.  Technically you are stepping on the toes of Qt4 and
> any applications built with Qt4, which is not a good thing to do.  

Sorry I do not understand this. Which collisions are you speaking about?
Collisions of filenames or something else?

> This 
> namespace collision is at the heart of why Qt4 cannot render Qt3 widget
> styles and themes, as well as why Qt4 features cannot be utilized in
> Trinity.  I refuse to halt progress in moving to the TQt namespace, which
> would open the door to a number of features including a good KHTML
> replacement, just to retain perfect compatibility with the long-obsolete
> KDE3.5.10 release.

OK. I just do not understand why it is necessary to link with tqtinterface 
non-KDE and non-Qt3 applications such as LO.