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.