[Development] Why is QTBUG-27186 closed?

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 2015-04-02 12:27, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Thursday April 02 2015 11:58:58 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Do you honestly expect that every Qt install on a Linux-based platform
>> will also have the base KF5 libraries installed? Even on a machine that
> 
> No, and I didn't say that. I did mention "reasonably small" and "standalone", meaning not requiring all of the base KF5 libraries.

Yes, but unless it's *part of Qt*, it's still something else that you
have to make a special effort to install (or else convince distros that
Qt should package-require it). And if it is as small as you are
suggesting, why *not* just have it be part of Qt? :-)

>> (¹ And there *are* legitimate reasons. Some applications may need the
>> ability to tweak the dialogs or their behavior. I've seen some do it
> 
> Isn't that exactly what this is about? How does fixing QFileDialog
> help applications that disable these dialogs to roll their own?

In my experience, applications that roll their own do so by subclassing
QFileDialog. Ergo, this has a chance of helping them. If they're
completely rolling their own, then Qt has very limited ability to help
them do the right thing, besides provide useful tools, which I think we
already do to anything within the extent of "reasonable effort".

Frankly, however, I am more concerned with applications that are just
using the built-in QFileDialog as-is, which is the case this would
benefit most directly.

>>> Adding specific code to an extension library is usually preferable to patching Qt ...
>>
>> There may be cases in which I would agree with that statement. This is
>> not one of them. This is *not* a bug that is specific to Linux.
> 
> That statement was not specific to the QFileDialog issue [...]

Fair enough. My reply was aimed at this specific case. As I said, in
other instances, I may well agree. (I decline to commit to agreeing or
not simply because I can't think of a concrete example case offhand.)

-- 
Matthew