Hello, Would you also consider creating a smaller macOS offline installer? Current version with Android and iOS is at 3.5 Gb and has been reported to cause persistent timeouts when downloaded on CI like Travis. Is providing android and iOS as add-on installs an option?
Marco Piccolino Il 07 giu 2017 9:30 AM, <[email protected]> ha scritto: Send Development mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Development digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Future of Qt on Web? (Konstantin Tokarev) 2. Re: Future of Qt on Web? (Lorn Potter) 3. Re: Future of Qt on Web? (Jason H) 4. Re: Nominating Vikas Pachdha for Approver status (Alex Blasche) 5. Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries (Jani Heikkinen) 6. Re: Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries (Lars Knoll) ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Konstantin Tokarev <[email protected]> To: Jason H <[email protected]>, Lorn Potter <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Bcc: Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0300 Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? 05.06.2017, 17:20, "Jason H" <[email protected]>: >> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 12:34 AM >> From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? >> >> On 06/05/2017 07:00 AM, Jason H wrote: >> > While Qt is not a web framework, over time there have been efforts to use it on the web (outlined below). >> > >> > Given that Chrome is dropping NaCL (http://www.tomshardware.com/n ews/chrome-deprecates-pnacl-embraces-webassembly,34583.html) and the WebGL streaming is also not ideal (but better?), I am wondering about the future of Qt on Web? Will there be a WebAssembly version of Qt? >> >> We have been working on Qt5 for webassembly. >> I was just writing a short blog about this: >> >> http://qtandeverything.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/qt-for-web-assembly.html > > That is great news! You mention the wasm is smaller? How much smaller? This article says it's smaller than asm.js, not NaCl > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Lorn Potter <[email protected]> To: Jason H <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Bcc: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 05:26:53 +1000 Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? On 06/06/2017 12:20 AM, Jason H wrote: > > >> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 12:34 AM >> From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? >> >> >> >> On 06/05/2017 07:00 AM, Jason H wrote: >>> While Qt is not a web framework, over time there have been efforts to use it on the web (outlined below). >>> >>> Given that Chrome is dropping NaCL (http://www.tomshardware.com/n ews/chrome-deprecates-pnacl-embraces-webassembly,34583.html) and the WebGL streaming is also not ideal (but better?), I am wondering about the future of Qt on Web? Will there be a WebAssembly version of Qt? >> >> We have been working on Qt5 for webassembly. >> I was just writing a short blog about this: >> >> http://qtandeverything.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/qt-for-web-assembly.html > > That is great news! You mention the wasm is smaller? How much smaller? For one small example app (standarddialog) the difference between asmjs and wasm is: wasm: 520 k js file and 14 MB wasm file. asmjs: 69 MB js file. ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Jason H <[email protected]> To: Lorn Potter <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Bcc: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 21:51:53 +0200 Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 3:26 PM > From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> > To: "Jason H" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? > > > > On 06/06/2017 12:20 AM, Jason H wrote: > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 at 12:34 AM > >> From: "Lorn Potter" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Development] Future of Qt on Web? > >> > >> > >> > >> On 06/05/2017 07:00 AM, Jason H wrote: > >>> While Qt is not a web framework, over time there have been efforts to use it on the web (outlined below). > >>> > >>> Given that Chrome is dropping NaCL (http://www.tomshardware.com/n ews/chrome-deprecates-pnacl-embraces-webassembly,34583.html) and the WebGL streaming is also not ideal (but better?), I am wondering about the future of Qt on Web? Will there be a WebAssembly version of Qt? > >> > >> We have been working on Qt5 for webassembly. > >> I was just writing a short blog about this: > >> > >> http://qtandeverything.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/qt-for-web-assembly.html > > > > That is great news! You mention the wasm is smaller? How much smaller? > > For one small example app (standarddialog) the difference between asmjs > and wasm is: > > wasm: 520 k js file and 14 MB wasm file. > asmjs: 69 MB js file. That's encouraging. It's almost reasonable. Maybe a progressive web app would be the way to go? But I don't think that is using the browser in the best way? You're effectively telling it how to redraw everything, rather than letting it do what it already knows how to do. Is that a fair statement? ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Alex Blasche <[email protected]> To: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> Cc: qt-creator <[email protected]> Bcc: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:58:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [Development] Nominating Vikas Pachdha for Approver status Congratulations to Vikas. The rights have been adjusted. -- Alex ________________________________________ From: Development <development-bounces+alexander.blasche= [email protected]> on behalf of Eike Ziller <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 15 May 2017 10:43:57 AM To: <[email protected]> Cc: qt-creator Subject: [Development] Nominating Vikas Pachdha for Approver status Hereby I nominate Vikas Pachdha for Approver status. He has been defacto maintaining iOS support in Qt Creator since a year. https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/owner:%22Vikas+Pachdha %22+status:merged,n,z Br, -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company GmbH Rudower Chaussee 13 D-12489 Berlin [email protected] http://qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Jani Heikkinen <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Bcc: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:57:10 +0000 Subject: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries Hi all, There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries. I don't see big need to change anything from 5.9 but there is still couple of things on my mind: - Should we now switch from MinGW32 bit -> MinGW 64bit ones? With 5.9 this was too early but would it be time to do it now? Offering both isn't an option. And 5,9 is LTS so 5.10 could be good release to change that... - Can we start using RHEL 7.4 for linux packaging? Tony is planning to add RHEL 7.4 in CI and so on it would be wise to replace 7.2 with 7.4 in the packaging as well Is there some other change proposals which we should discuss about? br, Jani ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- From: Lars Knoll <[email protected]> To: Jani Heikkinen <[email protected]> Cc: Qt development mailing list <[email protected]>, " [email protected]" <[email protected]> Bcc: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:30:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries Hi Jani, > On 7 Jun 2017, at 08:57, Jani Heikkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries. I don't see big need to change anything from 5.9 but there is still couple of things on my mind: > > - Should we now switch from MinGW32 bit -> MinGW 64bit ones? With 5.9 this was too early but would it be time to do it now? Offering both isn't an option. And 5,9 is LTS so 5.10 could be good release to change that... We got a lot of questions about 32bit binaries still in the comments to the release blog. But those were pretty much all about VS2017. I'd personally be happy to move more towards 64 bit, but we should somehow find out how much 32bit is still required by our users. > > - Can we start using RHEL 7.4 for linux packaging? Tony is planning to add RHEL 7.4 in CI and so on it would be wise to replace 7.2 with 7.4 in the packaging as well Sounds good to me, unless anybody knows about any reasons why we should stay on 7.2. > > Is there some other change proposals which we should discuss about? I think we should strongly consider dropping 32bit for iOS. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
