Re: Kconfig (qt) -> Gconfig (gtk)

J.A. Magallón
2002-11-03T00:00:14Z

On 2002.11.03 Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Nero wrote:
>
> > OR, we could use the logical choice. GTK+ is on most systems, has hardly any
> > dependancies, is relatively small (compared to Qt) and doesn't require a C++
> > compiler. Really, I think the only people being religious here are the ones
> > voting for Qt, as it just doesn't make sense to use it for such a thing.
>
> Show me the source and we can continue this discussion. Right now qconf is
> included as replacement for the old xconfig. It shouldn't take to much
> effort to package it seperately. As soon as someone is interested in doing
> this for a distribtion I'll add the few missing bits.
>

As I see it, the onle thing that should be included in a standard kernel
would be something like a kconfig-xaw, that is sure to be on every box that
has X, and could be a reference implementation.

And you could face one other religious war: qt2 or qt3 ? So as gtk1 or gtk2...

--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex:
werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.20-rc1-jam0 (gcc 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.0 3.2-2mdk))