[mythtv] Qt 3.1 still supported?

Colin Guthrie mythtv at colin.guthr.ie
Thu Jul 26 10:36:06 UTC 2007

Matt wrote:
> Can I play devil's advocate and say why not just bump up the minimum
> to 3.3 or even later?  Obviously, backwards compatibility is nice, but
> you've got to measure the risk/reward ratio.  As a user, I'd rather
> see new, inovative features, improvements, etc that a newer version
> could provide.  I would have to say that the folks who run myth for
> the most part rarely have a problem keeping up to date with software
> releases.  Myth is not like a pre-packaged software component (or
> environment) that anyone can expect to work without setting up
> additional components to make it work.  If one of those components is
> a minimum version of QT that's greater than what the current version
> of myth requires, then I call that progress. Most of us would happily
> go to QT4 if that was the direction the developers took.  And for the
> few who don't/can't upgrade past 3.3, then perhaps they don't intend
> to upgrade their myth installs either.  They can still run a version
> of myth that is compatible.
> Just my 2 cents.  Either way, I think it's a good idea that these kind
> of things are discussed instead of just simply decided without talking
> through the issues.  Keep up the good work guys.

I couldn't agree more.

I can think of plenty of projects that depend on the latest versions of
other packages and people are usually happy to keep up to date with the
latest bleeding edge. I appreciate Myth is a little different due to
some of the packaging and distributions of Myth are not always based on
a general purpose linux distro (e.g. roll your own).

With KDE4 just around the korner a Qt4 requirement will be part of all
the big desktops, certainly many (most?) of them have QT4 already, I
know we do with Mandriva.

I know an api change to Qt4 is a big undertaking that no-one will want
to undertake unless there are real beneifts, but certainly bumping the
minimum Qt3 requirement to a 3 year old release seems more than reasonable.

I know that Myth has in the past been criticised for being difficult to
build and having too many external dependencies (hence why a few
libmythexternallib bundled projects to reduce this - although I
appreciate some have modifications also) but I say screw that! Modern
linux apps make use of libraries rather than reinvent the wheel. What is
wrong with having lots of dependancies? Xorg has a shed load of
dependencies since it was modularised and yet everyone copes fine
(although I can't deny some people moan about it, others (myself
included) much prefer it!)

Just my rewording of the same point made by Matt :)



|     Colin Guthrie      |
| myth(at)colin.guthr.ie |
| http://colin.guthr.ie/ |

More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list