16 Oct
2012
16 Oct
'12
11:55 a.m.
In article <201210160530.31317.slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>,
Slávek Banko <trinity-devel(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
On Tuesday 16 of October 2012 00:17:11 Jekyll Wu
wrote:
I suspect KDE long term binary compatibility has as much to do with
the C++ ABI as the code's API. During the lifetime of KDE 3, Debian
progressed from kdelibs4, to (I think) kdelibs4c, to kdelibs4c2, to
kdelibs4c2a, all due to g++ ABI changes. That's leaving aside any Qt
soname changes, which I don't remember so well and can't be fussed to
dig out of the archives.
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
On 2012年10月16日 02:39, Darrell Anderson wrote:
Are you sure it's broken binary compatibility? I use Twinkle compiled with KDE
support. Binary is compiled against KDE 3.5.x libraries from Squeeze and QT3
from Squeeze. And same unchanged binary working without any problems with the
TDE 3.5.x libraries and QT3 from Trinity. In practical terms, Trinity is a continuation of
KDE 3.5.10
I'm sorry, but I have to say you(Trinity) are not. KDE promises binary
compatibility and you(Trinity) breaks it. Is that called continuation ?
Pretending and disclaiming you are a continuation of KDE3 would
eventually only bring more bad names to you(Trinity) and probably KDE.
Face and acknowledge the truth: You are a fork, and everybody already
knows.
Seriously, is that so hard and shameful?
Regards
Jekyll