[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

KDE3.1, qt3.0.5 and GCC3.2???



I realise this is not exactly Debian related, but I know that quie a few of 
you are working on building KDE and QT with GCC3.2 and just wanted to ask 
some experts.

I am getting ready to wipe my Debian Woody system and replace it with a 
self-compiled Linux including the latest bells-N-whistles I could find.

I am starting with the LFS base system tarball, which includes GCC3.2 and a 
few patches. As my card is not 3D accelerated in XFree86, I'll be using xig's 
Accelerated X server, but I still need to build XFree86, since xig does not 
provide most of the X libs or header files, expecting them to allready be 
installed.

I'll be building KDE3.1 once it's released, scheduled for Monday, the 11th.
The latest I heard was that GCC3.2, KDE3.1 and trolltechs qt3.0.5 did not 
play together well, and that KDE's qt-copy should be used instead. Is this 
still the case? Is this likely to change soon?

I'l also be building KOffice1.2, the latest stable version, but KDevelop is 
giving me pause for thought.

I know that KDevelop2.x has stopped development and that Gideon is the next 
version as KDevelop3.0. What has been peoples experiences with both of these 
on KDE3.0? Is Gideon a fast moving target that I would be better to wait for 
the stable release? Is the stable version of KDevelop good for KDE3.1 
development? 

Last time I looked at KDevelop, the documentation was seriously out-of-date. 
Has this been worked on?

Now I am aware that many people here are diligently working on packaging the 
latest-N-greatest KDE has to offer for Debian, and before Woody's release, I 
did track those developments. However, I am looking to improve my systems 
performance by limiting what gets installed and optimized compilation for my 
Dual PII system rather than the 386 compiled Debian packages. Not to mention 
the great learning experience for doing it myself.

Thank you all for your diligent work and expertise.

Cheers,

	John Gay



Reply to: