I am not sure, but maybe I caused the misunderstanding.
My app (code) uses QStandardPaths, but was rejected.
Harbour stated that I should use the XDG- based rules.
So, I thought: what is wrong with QStandardPaths?
Now -thanks to the comments up here- I understand that harbour was
talking about the .yaml/rpm stuff, not the directory references in the
app itself.
r
wim
On 01/09/2014 03:14 AM, Robin Burchell wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 00:37, Thomas Tanghus <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 09:22 Jonni Rainisto wrote:
IMHO applications that use QStandardPaths should be always accepted, there
must be something wrong with the process or rules if that is the cause for
rejection. If QStandardPaths points to wrong directory then its a bug which
should be fixed.
Can we consider this as a (semi-)official answer? I would also say that harbour
applications should not be rejected because of a (seemingly) Qt-bug that should
be easily patchable i.e. that QStandardPaths.data doesn't reflect XDG-*
standards.
I’m not sure I understand what bug you’re talking about. See the source:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/source/f0f6c1d0edd8c71530b8e47b61d70aa55a0c6a0c:src/corelib/io/qstandardpaths_unix.cpp
Can you please provide a demonstration?
BR,
Robin
_______________________________________________
SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
_______________________________________________
SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
