On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:07:24PM +0000, Russell King scribbled:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:36:08PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be more helpful to iron the (few) small glitches out of the
> > qt based one than write a new one just because you don't happen to like
> > the library?
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  Most, if not all of my boxes here don't have qt, and
> they're not going to get qt any time soon.  qt has a long list of
> dependencies which gtk doesn't have, which, imho is an overriding factor
> for why we should have a gtk implementation.
Exactly. On Debian the qt2 devel stuff is 17MB (!). Yesterday I was trying
to compile 2.5.45 just to see that even doing make menuconfig (which I
always use) breaks because of missing qt. It turned out that the problem is
in the scripts/kconfig/Makefile which executes the $(obj)/.tmp_qtcheck no
matter which configuration interface is used [1]. Adding '-' in front of the
rule served as a temporary work-around, but I got a bit shocked on finding
out that I'd have to dload 17MB of the Qt devel packages.
 
> Not that I used the old xconfig often anyway. 8)
Neither, but since it's here, it better work on any box :)

marek

[1] That's why I'm CCing this message to Roman Zippel, forgot to send a but
report yesterday :>