Hi,
I'd vote for keeping osgQT in the core, with maintenance for the
current Qt version only.
Basically that would mean to keep the legacy qt things out of the core,
thus reducing maintenance efforts but keeping compatibility for the
current versions.
Right now the Qt+OSG combination is frustrating enough and pushing it
out of the core won't improve the situation. Yet a lot of people use
this combination (osgEarth I think is using it definitively), so totally
separating it might decrease acceptance.
So basically having the Qt5 version supported by the current OSG version
would be beneficial for the "stock" user, maintaining a separate
Qt[insertOldVersionHere] repository would satisfy the needs of the "I'm
stuck to insertOldVersionHere - x" people.
I'm not a fan of removign osgQt altogether.
Cheers
Sebastian
Hi Werner,
The key problem we have is that the osgQt can't support both Qt4 and
Qt5 without rebuilding osgQt. This is fine if you build the OSG
yourself, but for distributions that include OSG binaries have to
choose between OSG with Qt4 or Qt5. This just doesn't work for all
end users, it's broken and can't be fixed while Qt is directly
integrated into the OSG.
Once osgQt is out of the core OSG there will be the potential for
supporting both Qt4 and Qt5. How best to manage this needs to be
something that the OSG Qt community decide to manage.
Robert.
On 6 September 2016 at 14:49, Werner Modenbach
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
if I recognized well, there are still frequent questions on the list about
Qt-interface in OSG.
At least we are using it very intensely. There was not much move in the
interface since long and so
we just take it as it was and as it works so far.
The threading problem is a bit unsatisfactory but we learned to live with
it.
For us it would be a big problem if further compatibility between OSG and Qt
would break.
I fully understand that you like to focus on the real OSG related tasks.
I have no idea what the best way would be for the future.
Unfortunately I also have not enough expertise to support Qt interface.
But I instantly hope there will be a good solution.
- Werner -
Am 06.09.2016 um 15:09 schrieb Robert Osfield:
Do we not have any Qt users anymore? No one care enough to chip in?
I'm not going to wait around forever before making decisions. I need
to get on with moving the OSG towards OSG-3.6.
The OSG/Qt users need to decide how they want to progress from here
once osgQt has been move out from the core OSG. If you don't step up
then osgQt will likely languish unloved and unsupported. I don't have
the Qt expertise to do the support, you guys need to step up.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
--
TEXION Software Solutions, Rotter Bruch 26a, D-52068 Aachen
Phone: +49 241 475757-0
Fax: +49 241 475757-29
Web: http://texion.eu
eMail: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
