[Proposal to Nokia/Qt] Create a "Qt Runtime"
-
In the mobile world you're actually bound to one or two installers. The same goes for the Linux distros.
On windows you have a myriad of installer builders (nullsoft, innosetup, WiX, standard MSI installers, Qt installer framework, Bitrock, InstallShield, InstallerFramework - and those are the only ones that come to my mind while thinking 10 seconds about it). One would have to support all of these or force the developers to use one of them.
Then you would have to make that bundle configurable, eg. for which Qt modules (not everyone needs QtWebKit or QtScript) and wich plugins (imageformats, sqldrivers...) to install. If you need some sql plugin apart from SQLite you would have to provide that on your own anyways, together with the db libs.
Don't get me wrong - I see the good idea behind that, but I just don't see the benefits, as it would most probably a windows only service.
-
[quote author="Volker" date="1310383679"]In the mobile world you're actually bound to one or two installers. The same goes for the Linux distros.
On windows you have a myriad of installer builders (nullsoft, innosetup, WiX, standard MSI installers, Qt installer framework, Bitrock, InstallShield, InstallerFramework - and those are the only ones that come to my mind while thinking 10 seconds about it). One would have to support all of these or force the developers to use one of them.
Then you would have to make that bundle configurable, eg. for which Qt modules (not everyone needs QtWebKit or QtScript) and wich plugins (imageformats, sqldrivers...) to install. If you need some sql plugin apart from SQLite you would have to provide that on your own anyways, together with the db libs.
Don't get me wrong - I see the good idea behind that, but I just don't see the benefits, as it would most probably a windows only service.[/quote]
Believe me Volker, I do not take you wrong: I read and process very carefully every post you provided in this thread. :-)
-
[quote author="Stavros Filippidis" date="1310383839"]
Believe me Volker, I do not take you wrong: I read and process very carefully every post you provided in this thread. :-)[/quote]Glad to hear that. I hope you don't get the impression that I'm the guy who's only picking the negative points :-)
-
[quote author="Volker" date="1310384024"]
[quote author="Stavros Filippidis" date="1310383839"]
Believe me Volker, I do not take you wrong: I read and process very carefully every post you provided in this thread. :-)[/quote]Glad to hear that. I hope you don't get the impression that I'm the guy who's only picking the negative points :-)[/quote]
Of course not! :-)
-
I voted yes.
It has been said in the past in http://labs.qt.nokia.com/ that qt is going to be more modular.
This purpose makes qt more modular..Also i want to mention some benefits for the unix that something like this might have.
Something like this (the proposal) can benefit distros which doesn't use binaries such as gentoo and slackware (they compile their binaries from the sources,a lot of time for Qt!)Also note that only KDE users and Qt programmers need the entire Qt,all the others,they just need some modules of it(Qt frameworks),why these users should install/compile the entire Qt.
Don't take me wrong,but someone who needs just some Qt modules can blame the Qt frameworks that forces his to install in his system the entire Qt.Moreover,Qt is going to be more "open" (Qt 5),so proposals like these will not make Qt frameworks more windows friendly,(at least not with the bad meaning of it).Actually the otherwise will happen,more modular Qt means more Qt in windows systems,so when people will start searching for more (bigger) Qtish stuff they will come across to projects like KDE,meego which are of course unix friendly.:)