> 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