Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> I was considering distributions which ship binary packages.
Right. In that sense, I agree with you.
> Yes, and, last time I checked, cmake had no "make uninstall", so it's possible
> that some renamed files are still kept in the installation directory. But I
> think that this cleanup, or fresh start, etc., can be done without
> correlation with a new Qt version.
Of course, and I occasionally do it with no such reason. Big qt-copy
changes are just a handy excuse :-).
>> In some (less common) cases, things may be *genuinely broken* if
>> the 4.4 code is used with 4.5.
>
> I can think of the workarounds that Plasma developers had to do with graphics
> view and the differences between 4.4 and 4.5, true, but I think that this are
> the exception, not the rule.
I agree.
> Sorry if someone felt insulted by my words. I tried to be clear and firm in my
> position, but not attacking at all.
No worries, as long as you don't mind that I stand firm in my position
also :-).
> I just wanted that people used rationality and common sense: if a
> rebuild was _needed_ (and that's the word David used and that made me
> feel forced to reply), unstable/development binary distribution
> branches could not exist the way they do.
I think we agree in general. Is a rebuild *needed*? Usually not. Is it
*beneficial*... well, it can be, sometimes :-).
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"943. I am not Bjorn of Borg."
-- from 975 things Mr. Welch can no longer do in an RPG
http://theglen.livejournal.com/16735.html
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
