https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84263
[email protected] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #7 from [email protected] --- to 1. yes, the theory says that it does not matter, but my experience says that this is also depends on the environment/distribution you are using, and their compiler flags. It is common habit to use "" for project local includes and <> for system includes. This can be enforced by CFLAGS. At least one handle do that in one unique way within one project, and not a wild mixture. That's just a matter of programming style. to 2. maybe you asked the wrong person...? I am sure that the Qt-4 include paths heavily depend on the distribution and in my case (Gentoo Linux) there is only one common qt4 include directive, so that the directory prefix is needed. This was different in Qt-3 and it will change (again) in Qt-5, but for Qt-4 you only are on the safe side if you use it the way I patched it. AFAIR this was the *recommended* way when porting from Qt-3 to Qt-4. Using the old way "might" work, but it definitely did not here. So as a conclusion: what kind of risk do you see in fixing this? BTW: my pkgconf and Qt setup *is* correct, definitely! I have hundreds of Qt/KDE applications that compile fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
