> -----Original Message----- > From: development-bounces+andy.shaw=digia....@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+andy.shaw=digia....@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: 14. januar 2013 16:52 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] ICU and Windows > > On segunda-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2013 13.02.46, Shaw Andy wrote: > > Therefore I would like to propose that for 5.0.1 we simply modify the pro > > file so that it expects a d after the library name for the debug version > > and the release one stays as it is. What we could do to make it more > > robust is connect it into configure so it checks if it exists and if it > > does not fall back onto the release version (and give a warning) so it will > > continue to build as before. > > > > Then in 5.1.0 we put ICU into the 3rdparty directory and then we have > more > > control over it and build it ourselves as it seems that this would give us > > more benefits long term from what John Layt said in a previous mail. > > > > How does this sound, is there anything that would mean that this is not a > > good thing to do? > > I think it's too late for 5.0.1. We could do it for 5.0.2, but I'll insist > that we don't change anything for 5.0.x, unless it is proven that we are doing > things wrong. > > Let's do the import into 3rdparty for 5.1.0 then, if that's the solution we > agree upon. And Pau is right: if we need to access the C++ API to get enough > information for some of our APIs, we'll need to build ourselves for MinGW > anyway.
Ok, if we have it as a goal to fix in Qt 5.1.0 then I can live with that as it is less disruption in any case. Andy _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development