On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:25:25PM -0400, John Thacker wrote: > But, considering that I don't see qt 2.x around anymore (it was > in RH9 but not FC1), and it's neither source nor binary compatible > with qt 3.x, Not everything we ship has to be part of the platform. That would be crazy and counterproductive, I agree. We must carefully pick our exported (and supported) interface. For the record, I don't consider QT part of the platform because of licensing (but I don't want to start a flamefest, so let's leave it at that :)). > and I don't see a lot of other older compatibility stuff > around, I wouldn't be suprised if gtk+ went to Extras after nothing > in Core needed it. We don't include gtk+ 1.0.x, even though it's > also incompatible with gtk+ 1.2. In the past we could get away with breakage such as this. There wasn't even a pretense of a platform back in the day, so 3rd parties (outside of OSS) didn't bother to build for it. I hope we're all trying to change that, and establish Linux as a serious platform. That means we need to be careful what we depracate and how we handle binary compatibility. Whatever we did in the past can not be used as an argument for the future (or present for that matter). -- Dimi.
