Are you still interested in porting to windows, if so I will be letting all my mates know that soon they too can use Amarok.

From what I know the first version to use QT4 is 2.0, witch will be built around KDE 4.0. So when KDE 4.0 is out amarok 2.0 is pending. _Then_ the work, for whoever is interested in doing it, to port it to windows can begin.
Or you could fork the current code and port it to QT4.0, then port the rest that needs porting to make it run in windows. But it will be alot easier to follow the bandwagon when other parts of KDE4.0 is beeing ported.

fish wrote:

Are you still interested in porting to windows,

who is "you"? markey and crew? probably not

seriously, there have been discussions about porting amaroK to windows (most of the threads locked meanwhile, guess why).
so, nice for you, start porting!

btw.. use the search function, there has been lots of talk about this already, really!

This is why I asked since the other threads are locked, I don\'t program so I guess my mates are out of luck. Still I\'m sure a port will happen, even if it is a fork. To bad so sad as they say

ehhm now we are 2 fishs? I think I need to register...haha B)

Heh, I can confirm that one has fish has a Canadian IP and the other a Swiss one.

I think requiring logins might be a good idea, if only to ensure that we have a way of contacting people.

At dot.kde.org the Qt4 news says that KDE 3.4 has been succesfully compiled with Qt 4 (http://dot.kde.org). I think with Qt-KDE-Wrapper/KDElibs for win32 (http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=KDElibs+for+win32) there is a way to get amaroK to work under Windows. GStreamer is avaible as python binding (shouldn\'t it run under windows?) and tag3lib (or what it is called) has a 1.1 version under windows too. Or the better way try it with the Qt 3.3.4 Windows Free Edition created by cygwin (but no cygwin is then required) users:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=471148
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/index.php

Hey could someone try these things out? First a working amaroK without sound output would be a big step (and maybe without tag support too because these two things would be the next steps). These two/three little ideas maybe someone could try in an hour if there is a little way a windows port could go!

Sorry I can\'t I\'m not a developer and now anything about programming, compiling, ...

As has been said elsewhere, you can not use the Qt Free Edition with amaroK because amaroK is GPL. You could probably port amaroK to windows right now (perhaps without sound) if your willing to use a X server.

I don\'t know amarok internally, but maybe the easiest way is to make a new sound engine for windows, based on i.e. DirectSound.

eean wrote:

You could probably port amaroK to windows right now (perhaps without sound).

you spoiled my beer, really! this is all over the carpet right now :woohoo:

well, i guess this is another thread that needs to be closed

STOP!!!

Or the better way try it with the Qt 3.3.4 Windows Free Edition created by cygwin (but no cygwin is then required) users:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=471148
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/index.php

This edition is GPLed as you can read on their webpage:

The QT3/Windows Free Edition is a native win32 port of the gpl´ed qt/x11 sources. It use native win32 api and does not require cygwin.

In the last thread I tried to tell you this too... so there is a way!?

winport wrote:
In the last thread I tried to tell you this too... so there is a way!?[/quote]
well, the source is there. grab it, and port it for yourself. tell us if you succeeded!


Post edited by: hds, at: 2005/06/30 00:43

I\'m not a developer so I won\'t be able to do this because I don\'t know anything about compiling and I don\'t have any of this Microsoft or Borland tools...

neither do we. plus: none of us is running windows or even got it installed.

you\'d have to wait for some opensource windows guy. which will be hard to find, since everyone who knows just a little about computers & technics prolly wouldn\'t run windows.

...muesli

Hi, I am new to this forum and I just want to say Amarok is brilliant and I love it!!!

I\'ve been following the Amarok Windows port posts with interest.

I am not a developer myself but I would like to point out something a few things

I don\'t know amarok internally, but maybe the easiest way is to make a new sound engine for windows,
based on i.e. DirectSound.

I don\'t think it would be \'easy\' to create a sound engine for windows unless Kdemultimedia libraries are included in QT4 Windows, in fact it would be easier to port Amarok over (from what i\'ve read, that\'s the whole point of QT4)

If QT4 does not have multimedia libraries then you would have to code a sound engine using the DirectX SDK which I suspect will be a time-consuming project in itself. There could also be a licensing issue.

Hey could someone try these things out? First a working amaroK without sound output would be a big step (and maybe without tag support too because these two things would be the next steps). These two/three little ideas maybe someone could try in an hour if there is a little way a windows port could go

Going through nearly 9 meg of code (Version 1.3) to take out sound output as well as compiling and debugging will take more than hour.

Putting the practical aspects aside, I am intrigued by the arguments of whether to port.

Will porting Linux software to Windows affect Linux? It would be easier for users to migrate from Windows to Linux if they were familar with software like Amarok and KDE office.

Would users want to migrate if they had the software for XP. Personally I think performance wise, Linux is superior to Win XP and it will be the arguments like this rather than what software is available that will persuade people to turn to Linux.