On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Alexis López Zubieta <azubi...@estudiantes.uci.cu> wrote: > Hello: > > I have already ported the panel and some of it's plugins: mainmenu, > quicklaunch and clock. But I have had some troubles in the meanwhile. > The first is the translations scripts, the .desktop translation works > good not so the translation of the ui files, I will require some help Don't worry about the translations. We can handle them later. Just make the code work first. As you know lxqt is the merge of lxde and razor-qt. Historially the former uses pootle for translation while the latter uses transifex. We're in the way of merging and do not have a final conclusion on how to handle translations now. It will be decided before the first release anyways. Then we can start fixing all broken translations.
> here as I previously said. Second and more important is the X11 > dependencies, I wasn't able to build the parts that depends on it > (taskbar and systry). It's reasonable to make them optional and turn them off when X11 is not used. So at least we can test other parts. There will be no replacement for systray in wayland so turning it off when not using X11 is ok. > Now I'm on my way to install ubuntu 14.04 beta2 to try the kde > kwindowssystem because it requires qt5.2 and cmake 2.8.12. I will try to > get in contact with the kde developers to get some help in doing the > port of those plugins. But I would like you to notice that if we use > this lib we will depend on those tools. Feel free to work on this in your branch. Once you have working code, it's easy for people to evaluate if it's a good solution. I personally support the idea of trying kwindowsystem. However, the main developers of lxqt-panel are Alexander Sokolov, Kuzma Shapran, Petr Vanek, and Luís Pereira. So if possible, their comments are really wanted. I see two options here. 1. Use xfitman for Qt4, and kwindowsystem for Qt5. That is, we can have taskbar-qt4.cpp and taskbar-qt5.cpp providing different implementations. 2. Back port kwindowsystem to Qt4 so we can use it in all places regardless of Qt version. > Also I would like to propose having the qt5.* port in a separated branch > and don't have the construction scripts and code for the two versions of > the qt framework in the same files. It is just to ease the development. That will make our life easier, but I see some issues about this approach. 1. If you add some compiler flags and source files to the qt4 branch, you need to do it for qt5 branch at the same time. If you forget to do so, things will be broken. This workflow is more error prone. 2. Having make rules for both versions in one makefile will make it crowded, but it's easy to review the difference of both versions and keeping them in sync is easier. 3. It's easier for packagers and testers to test two different versions at the same time. Just pass a different command line argument and you can turn on Qt5 support. Normally packagers don't create package for code in git. They use tarballs when available. With your approach, we'll need to have tarballs for both versions separately, which is hard to maintain. Best wishes > Best wishes > Alexis López Zubieta > Nova Light Development Team > University of Informatics Sciences, Cuba ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
