On 13.05.2014 00:14, Ian Monroe wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Peter Kümmel <syntheti...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On 12.05.2014 23:29, Daniel Bowen wrote: >>> >>> If anyone has other things to add, please do. >> >> Maybe it is worth to think about a Qt library which really only >> provides essential stuff. What would such a library contain, >> when all the "but the GUI needs it" was removed? > > I think sort of the opposite happened, Qt5Core got to its size because > there are useful features that non-GUI applications might want that > were moved there. Like QRegularExpression, you could easily see that > being useful in all sorts of server/daemon applications. Stuff that > only GUI needs stayed in QtGui and friends.
Yes, later on I also realized this. > > This whole discussion reminds me of this recent article about Linux > slimming down the ipv4 stack: > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/597529/314ebe6febbc9f59/ So maybe the question should be, what does an essential 1M Qt lib need to be of any use? > > Like Qt there's no low-hanging fruit, just a bunch of things that can > be stripped out that together would add up to a meaningful decrease. > > Unlike the Linux networking maintainers, Thiago is open to > configure-time methods to slim down QtCore. That seems like the way > forward for people who care about such things. > > Ian > _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest