On 9/15/11 10:02 PM, "ext BRM" <[email protected]> wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> On 9/15/11 3:05 PM, "ext BRM" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [snip] >>> Please don't make Release Configurations overly complex in >> implementation. >>> That is - there should only be a handful of release configurations: >>> >>> Windows >>> Mac >>> X11/Wayland/etc >>> Embedded/General (QWS) >>> >>> Embedded/Symbian >>> Embedded/MeeGo >>> >>> Each of these ought to be pretty straight forward and contain all >>>modules >>> by default; allowing developers to disable individual ones when they >>>want >>> just like in Qt4. >>> The exception might be Embedded/Symbian and Embedded/MeeGo where >>> QtWidgets might not be used as QtGraphicsWidget+QML is likely the >>> priority and main use there; but even there it should probably be >>> available for developers to enable if desired. >>> >>> >>> It would only make things more difficult for people deciding which to >>>use >>> if you have to select from different flavors of Qt; as it is, the above >>> can be problematic enough for Commercial Users - where X11/Mac/Windows >>> while targetting different OS could simply be Qt Desktop instead. >>> >>> There is not reason to follow Microsoft's lead of splitting Windows >>>into >>> Windows Starter Edition, Windows Home Premium, Windows >>> Professional/Business Edition, Windows Ultimate, and the other variants >>> that I am missing and doing something similar with Qt as that is not >>> useful for developers when it comes to a toolkit. >> >> I actually want to simplify this significantly. Currently each linux >> distribution usually builds Qt with a whole lot of custom flags. I'd >>like >> to narrow this down to one standard configuration at least for desktop >> OS'es. >> >> On embedded systems, I'd rather like to do the feature selection on the >> module level (ie. leave out QtWidgets if you want, no QtSvg, etc). >>rather >> than disabling individual features and crippling the libraries. >> >> The reason is that maintaining the defines for individual features has >> been a huge hazzle in the past. Some configurations where always broken. >> The added value that still was there when you had to fit things into >>32MB >> or ROM has mostly disappeared today, and savings for a sensible system >> where not all that big. >> > >I can very well agree on that. I just don't want us to end up in a >situation where developers are trying to figure out if the "Release" they >got has all the features they need. >The developer compiling the software should be in charge of it - whether >a distro or commercial user; but they shouldn't have to go through a >major hassle to make sure the version they got is what they need - >comparison charts should not be necessary when selecting a "Release" to >use. > >For sake of a comparison, kind of like with Windows - if you get the >Windows 7 Business Edition then you don't get the Multimedia stuff that >is in Windows 7 Home Premium, things you might need though for >presentations. Don't want this. Just have a look at the Qt product definition (see some earlier thread on this list). We have Qt essentials that have to be there on all platforms, and addons that are optional or only supported on certain platforms. That should make this a lot clearer than with Qt 4. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
