corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:39:01 GMT
I don't want to dive into this.  I do want to correct some misconceptions of my views.

Key Point: When an LGPL dependence is made optional, I believe it is not that it is optionally
removable/replaceable.  My understanding is that it is optionally introduceable.  Not optionally

I am concerned that this view of "optional" will be seen as gaming the policy on Category
X software when it is time to have a Corinthia release approved by the Incubator PMC.

I don't understand the inference that I don't see an editor as part of Corinthia.  There is
no basis for that inference.  I thought having an editor was the whole point of the Corinthia
model and the architectural approach.  I have never said anything to the contrary.  I have
opinions about the building of an editor and I would be very disappointed if Corinthia did
not provide at least one portably-compilable/-deployable editor.

 - Dennis

PS: I am usually very careful to speak of source-code *releases* and binary *distributions.*
 If I have not made that clear in speaking of binaries, it is a mistake on my part.  For example,
when I say "Any project-provided binary distribution ..." I am not speaking of an Apache Project
release, even when those are often produced in company with Apache releases.  I thought I
had cleared that up in previous conversations somewhere.

PPS: Jar files, a form of binaries, are often provided for Java-based Apache Projects.  These
days, I would not be surprised to see signed libraries also be provided (i.e., DLLs and the

-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:53
To:; Dennis Hamilton <>
Subject: Re: Is Qt the right choice ??

On 29 July 2015 at 17:56, Dennis E. Hamilton <>

[ ... ]

> If an editor is to be a release from Corinthia, the challenge is to not
> have a requirement for Qt, however that is accomplished.  I have not
> suggested that having an editor be abandoned.  I have suggested that having
> Qt be essential as the UI framework is a deal breaker.
You did not use the word "abandoned" but there were no doubt that you did
not see an editor being part of corinthia

Nobody have ever talked about making Qt essential, the word "optional" has
always been used, because the implementation will of course be in a way
that it
can be replaced. It is however a misunderstand to assume that we have to
provide multiple implementation for an optional component of the project.

View raw message