Hey guys. I was wondering, how much does amarok depend on klibs? I think it\'s a great app (much better than iTunes for sure) and it\'d be great to have a Mac port. Now, there IS a QT/Mac port of kLibs, but I think it\'s a little overkill to install whole 2GB KDE release just because of one app So what do you think? Can one guy (me propably ) port amarok to QT/Mac, or are klibs realy necessary?

PS. I haven\'t looked at the code yet, but I will as soon as I fix my internet connection (Which I reckon shouldn\'t be more than a day or two)

No, porting amaroK would be a very large chore indeed, and probably wouldn\'t look much like amaroK in the end.

Why do you need to install all of KDE just to use kdelibs? Guess I don\'t I understand you crazy mac people ;P

Isn\'t KDE already on Mac natively? If so, seems like the only chore would be to get sound to work. amaroK already has a plugin-based engine for sound engines so you could use whatever native Mac system has. Or maybe one of the sound engines is already on Mac, I have no idea really.

Well we, the crazy mac people if you will, certainly don\'t need to install entire KDE just to use the klibs. But even the libs alone take a HUGE amount of disk space, often require X11 to function and their look and behaviour are far from that native to OS X. That\'s why some frequently used K apps get native ports.

I have taken a brief look at the amarok source and I reckon I might be able to port it, given time. Maybe I will, it all depends on how kde 4.0 comes out, \'cause last I heard it was supposed to be much more portable than 3.x so I guess I\'ll have to wait and see Well thanks anyway, if I start porting Amarok I\'ll announce it here.

KDElibs and KDEBase is about 150MB here, not that much really considering hard-disk sizes. And all amaroK needs is KDElibs, so you could prolly compile that into 75MB, if you don\'t compile the docs, prolly a fair amount less.

amaroK is wholly dependent on KDElibs, but if you were too install KDElibs, TagLib, X11 and Qt, you could compile amaroK without any changes hopefully, and with minimal work most likely.

Max

Post edited by: mxcl, at: 2005/01/23 18:24

Yes I am aware of that. However as I explained in the post previous to yours, that is not what I had in mind X11, kLibs and all that just slow thing down. While on a Linux box running KDE as it\'s primary desktop environment, klibs and X11 are fully utilized and run natively, on Mac OS X it adds a very bloated and slow element to an encapsulated window system. X11 applications require X11 server to run. Amarok requires KDE libs to run. And all that eats just way too much memory. Besides even if I put aside the memory and speed issues, programs that rely on klibs have a VERY different look and feel from those native to aqua/quartz (mac os window system) and that is rather disturbing. Sort of like a GNOME app running on top of kwin if you know what I mean.

I\'m not complaining or anything, just stating the facts... and trying to help make things better

Yea, but can\'t you compile KDE with Qt/Mac now that Trolltech has released it under the GPL as well (IIRC). As far as look and feel, I read somewhere the Qt/Mac has a look and feel for OS X, seems like you could run that with KDE programs as well.

Anyways, the X11 server is part of OS X, it can\'t be that bad.

Edit: Did some googling found the KDE-Darwin mailing list and this thread:
http://www.opendarwin.org/pipermail/kde ... 01806.html

Looks like porting KDE and kdelibs to Qt/Mac is coming along anyways. That would be the correct solution.

Post edited by: eean, at: 2005/01/23 23:33

That I\'m aware of. QT/Mac does have the look and feel of Mac, KDE however uses QT only as the foundation stone of it\'s klibs, that fully re-implement entire appearance of everything. It\'s by design the former idea was to make KDE work exactly the same on all systems no matter what it\'s native look was. X11 is not THAT bad but it\'s not a part of quartz, it\'s an add-on and you can feel it. I still think I can do it and port amarok maybe with some static linking to some really basic klibs, stand by for more info, once I get somewhere I\'ll make an announcement.

Can\'t you use Qt look and feels in KDE? If you can\'t, why did the KDE developers bother to make look and feels for all these esoteric and ugly UI\'s? (SGI, RISC OS, and motif to point out the more esoteric).

I\'ve just built first mac version of amarok. It\'s... well buggy at best, but important thing is that it works at long last I\'ll be back with more info later

Congradulations!

This is a big step, I\'d like to see some more information on this for sure. Maybe next a Windows port will be made.

Do you have screenshots of it running on OSX, I assume nativley?

Adam wrote:

I\'ve just built first mac version of amarok. It\'s... well buggy at best, but important thing is that it works at long last I\'ll be back with more info later

Sorry to bump this old thread, but I\'m dying for more info

Windows port won\'t be possible until amarok 2.0 due to license restrictions in QT3.