On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Paul Seelig wrote:
> Hi Angus!
>
> It's great to hear about your success! :-)
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:20:09PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > checking for Qt... libraries /usr/users/aleem/OTHERS_CODE/qt-1.44/lib,
> > headers /usr/users/aleem/OTHERS_CODE/qt-1.44/include
> [ snip ]
> > checking for KDE... libraries /usr/local/kde/lib, headers
> > /usr/users/aleem/OTHERS_CODE/kde-1.1.2/include
> >
> Isn't it a futile effort still using qt-1.4x and KDE-1.x for the KLyX
> port? Wouldn't it make more sense basing this port right away on a
> GPL'ed qt-2.x and the forthcoming KDE-2.x?
>
> Thank you, P. *8^)
>
No, both me and Juergen agree on this. KDE2 is not even out yet, although
its stability is improving. Look at the two choices like this :
1) we do KDE2 now.
for at least six months, practically nobody can use it except the small
percentage with a bleeding-edge distribution, or the rare few who install
it themselves.
for at least four years, there will be KDE 1.x boxes around which are
unable to use the KDE version of lyx. This is especially true in
university environments, where old boxes can stay fairly unmaintained. And
students/researchers are one of the big users of lyx ;)
2) we do KDE1 now, KDE 2 later.
KDE lyx will be immediately usable to the vast majority of users. I expect
many people to keep KDE1 installations even when KDE2 is installed for
other applications that aren't updated.
When KDE2 becomes widespread, additionally porting to it will be simpler
than the xforms->kde first step. AND we can keep *both* so both KDE1 and
KDE2 users can benefit.
So I much much prefer the second option. This is all imho of course !
thanks
john
--
"EBCDIC - IBM's answer to uncrackable data encryption"
- Vorlon
