Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On Jul 11, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud chg...@gna.org wrote: On 11/07/2014 11:22 a.m., Thiago Macieira wrote: On Friday 11 July 2014 10:05:03 Christian Gagneraud wrote: Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers. Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux. Participating in Yocto by maintaining the Qt5 layer and working on Boot to Qt are orthogonal to each other. Digia could do both if it wanted to. Well at least before they started Boot to Qt w/ Android, working on boot to Qt implied polishing the Yocto Qt5 layer or writing another one from scratch. They obviously did some work on that and it's a pity that nothing have been given back to the community. That was my point. Or someone else could do the maintaining of the Qt 5 layer in Yocto. I don't see the problem with that either: the Qt Project has a lot of people from different companies collaborating together. We don't depend on Digia doing everything. No, Qt doesn't depend on Digia, but Digia depends on Qt! When you look at their Qt Enterprise Embedded, it's Qt, QtCreator, QtSimulator, GNU, Linux, Android, with a pinch of Enterprise plug-in's and add-on's all well packed together. You should have a look at commit reality in Qt: http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt-all.employer.relative.png and Qt Creator: http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/creator.employer.relative.png Br, Eike Besides, IIRC the Boot to Qt project was trying to use the Android base layer because that's the best BSP that most silicon vendors provide. Notably, the vendors not participating in Yocto. They might have switched to Android (Well, apparently not really [1], Yocto is used both for targeting Android and Pure Embedded Linux), but AFAIK you can boot to Qt in less than 0.5s with a bare embedded Linux (using Yocto or similar), whereas it takes 10 times longer with Android. Having said all these, Digia has its own business model, maybe I was expecting Digia to behave much like Nokia, my mistake. Chris [1] http://linuxgizmos.com/qt-embedded-gui-adds-yocto-recipes-hops-up-emulator/ ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt Digia Germany GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Tuula Haataja Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 11/07/14 18:50, Ziller Eike wrote:
On Jul 11, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud chg...@gna.org wrote:
On 11/07/2014 11:22 a.m., Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday 11 July 2014 10:05:03 Christian Gagneraud wrote:
Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based
on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated
Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official
maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon
Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies
maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the
Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the
above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers.
Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross
toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think
it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux.
Participating in Yocto by maintaining the Qt5 layer and working on Boot to
Qt
are orthogonal to each other.
Digia could do both if it wanted to.
Well at least before they started Boot to Qt w/ Android, working on
boot to Qt implied polishing the Yocto Qt5 layer or writing another one
from scratch. They obviously did some work on that and it's a pity that
nothing have been given back to the community. That was my point.
Or someone else could do the maintaining of the Qt 5 layer in Yocto. I don't
see the problem with that either: the Qt Project has a lot of people from
different companies collaborating together. We don't depend on Digia doing
everything.
No, Qt doesn't depend on Digia, but Digia depends on Qt!
When you look at their Qt Enterprise Embedded, it's Qt, QtCreator,
QtSimulator, GNU, Linux, Android, with a pinch of Enterprise
plug-in's and add-on's all well packed together.
You should have a look at commit reality in Qt:
http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt-all.employer.relative.png
and Qt Creator:
http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/creator.employer.relative.png
It looks like you got a point! ;)
According to these stats, 70% of Qt commits (qt-all.employer.relative)
go to Digia, 80% of QtCreator commits (creator.employer.relative) go to
Digia.
That's quite impressive I have to say and I would like to take this
opportunity to give a big thanks to all of you.
I think Thiago was more about the Open Governance side of Qt, and I was
just trying to point to the fact that the core business of Digia is Qt,
so getting Qt widespread is good for Digia and so having an easily
accessible Boot to Qt is good for Qt, so at the end it's good for
Digia too.
If you look at https://github.com/meta-qt5/meta-qt5/graphs/contributors,
you won't find any Digia traces, which is quite surprising when you
think that this is the key technology behind Digia's Qt Enterprise
Embedded.
bad-jokeI even beat you all, with my single 3 lines commit/bad-joke
So now, let's have a look at https://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/simulator,
or maybe not
I'm not here to start an argument, I was more looking for an open
discussion. Outside of Android, Embedded Linux is very important, it is
everywhere, in your car, your fridge, your watch, your phone, your
weight scale, your house alarm system, your home router, ... insert
your preferred gizmo here, the more embedded Linux system using Qt out
there, the more likely Digia will have business opportunity, please
don't follow Silicon Vendors in their closeness habits, embrace the Open
Source philosophy, it works!
Chris
Br, Eike
Besides, IIRC the Boot to Qt project was trying to use the Android base
layer
because that's the best BSP that most silicon vendors provide. Notably, the
vendors not participating in Yocto.
They might have switched to Android (Well, apparently not really [1],
Yocto is used both for targeting Android and Pure Embedded Linux), but
AFAIK you can boot to Qt in less than 0.5s with a bare embedded Linux
(using Yocto or similar), whereas it takes 10 times longer with Android.
Having said all these, Digia has its own business model, maybe I was
expecting Digia to behave much like Nokia, my mistake.
Chris
[1]
http://linuxgizmos.com/qt-embedded-gui-adds-yocto-recipes-hops-up-emulator/
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
--
QtCreator/qmakeparser.cpp:42
// Parser ///
#define fL1S(s) QString::fromLatin1(s)
namespace { // MSVC2010 doesn't seem to know the semantics of static ...
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 11/07/14 18:50, Ziller Eike wrote:
On Jul 11, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud chg...@gna.org wrote:
On 11/07/2014 11:22 a.m., Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday 11 July 2014 10:05:03 Christian Gagneraud wrote:
Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based
on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated
Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official
maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon
Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies
maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the
Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the
above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers.
Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross
toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think
it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux.
Participating in Yocto by maintaining the Qt5 layer and working on Boot to
Qt
are orthogonal to each other.
Digia could do both if it wanted to.
Well at least before they started Boot to Qt w/ Android, working on
boot to Qt implied polishing the Yocto Qt5 layer or writing another one
from scratch. They obviously did some work on that and it's a pity that
nothing have been given back to the community. That was my point.
Or someone else could do the maintaining of the Qt 5 layer in Yocto. I don't
see the problem with that either: the Qt Project has a lot of people from
different companies collaborating together. We don't depend on Digia doing
everything.
No, Qt doesn't depend on Digia, but Digia depends on Qt!
When you look at their Qt Enterprise Embedded, it's Qt, QtCreator,
QtSimulator, GNU, Linux, Android, with a pinch of Enterprise
plug-in's and add-on's all well packed together.
You should have a look at commit reality in Qt:
http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt-all.employer.relative.png
and Qt Creator:
http://www.macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/creator.employer.relative.png
It looks like you got a point! ;)
According to these stats, 70% of Qt commits (qt-all.employer.relative)
go to Digia, 80% of QtCreator commits (creator.employer.relative) go to
Digia.
That's quite impressive I have to say and I would like to take this
opportunity to give a big thanks to all of you.
I think Thiago was more about the Open Governance side of Qt, and I was
just trying to point to the fact that the core business of Digia is Qt,
so getting Qt widespread is good for Digia and so having an easily
accessible Boot to Qt is good for Qt, so at the end it's good for
Digia too.
If you look at https://github.com/meta-qt5/meta-qt5/graphs/contributors,
you won't find any Digia traces, which is quite surprising when you
think that this is the key technology behind Digia's Qt Enterprise
Embedded.
bad-jokeI even beat you all, with my single 3 lines commit/bad-joke
So now, let's have a look at https://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/simulator,
or maybe not
I'm not here to start an argument, I was more looking for an open
discussion. Outside of Android, Embedded Linux is very important, it is
everywhere, in your car, your fridge, your watch, your phone, your
weight scale, your house alarm system, your home router, ... insert
your preferred gizmo here, the more embedded Linux system using Qt out
there, the more likely Digia will have business opportunity, please
don't follow Silicon Vendors in their closeness habits, embrace the Open
Source philosophy, it works!
Chris
Br, Eike
Besides, IIRC the Boot to Qt project was trying to use the Android base
layer
because that's the best BSP that most silicon vendors provide. Notably, the
vendors not participating in Yocto.
They might have switched to Android (Well, apparently not really [1],
Yocto is used both for targeting Android and Pure Embedded Linux), but
AFAIK you can boot to Qt in less than 0.5s with a bare embedded Linux
(using Yocto or similar), whereas it takes 10 times longer with Android.
Having said all these, Digia has its own business model, maybe I was
expecting Digia to behave much like Nokia, my mistake.
Chris
[1]
http://linuxgizmos.com/qt-embedded-gui-adds-yocto-recipes-hops-up-emulator/
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
--
QtCreator/qmakeparser.cpp:42
// Parser ///
#define fL1S(s) QString::fromLatin1(s)
namespace { // MSVC2010 doesn't seem to know the semantics of static ...
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 09/07/14 19:53, Andrea Barna wrote:
Hi,
I am Andrea from Digia Qt, I have recently taken over the Qt
businessin your region.
Hi Andrea,
All the best for your new position!
I noticed that you downloaded the trial version of Qt last year and
Iwas wondering whether the evaluation went well.
It would be helpful to understand why you were evaluating Qt, and
learn more about what type of application you are developing.
I downloaded your evaluation version of Qt to see how different it is
from the open source one. I am especially interested in embedded and
industrial application and as such I was curious about your Boot to Qt
technology.
I was not really surprised to discover that your proprietary Boot to
Qt technology is based on the open-source Yocto project [1], and I
think that instead of keeping this technology closed, you should be the
official maintainer of the Qt5 Yocto layer (lot of work is needed there,
and you have handles in-house), I think you should contact the Linux
Foundation [2], they will be glad to see you being a major actor in the
open-source embedded Linux world.
Furthermore is there anything that Digia–Qt can help you with?
Definitely yes: please open up your open source based
commercial/proprietary boot to Qt technology.
I am not asking that because I am an open-source fanatic, I am asking
that because this is the only reliable and efficient way to get Qt
massively adopted on the embedded/industrial Linux market, I think that
Digia should be a (publicly visible) key actor in this sector.
Maybe one day you will be able to replace your Code once, run
everywhere with Code once, run everywhere, without pain!.
Getting Qt5 + Yocto + OpenGL-ES running across different ARM SoCs is a
real pain.
Best regards,
Chris
PS: No disrespect to you, Digia, Nokia, TrollTech and all the Qt trolls,
hat off and thumb up to all you guys! I am just tired to see a beautiful
open-source SW community being permanently fooled by professional
closed-source HW company. Please don't be part of this masquerade!
PS2: I've CC'ed the Qt developer mailing list (public archived available
[3]), hoping this could be useful to someone, somehow, someday.
[1] https://www.yoctoproject.org/
[2] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/contact
[3] http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/
I look forward to hearing about your project.
Best Regards,
Andrea
Andrea Barna | Junior Sales Executive
Digia Norway AS, Sandakerveien 116, PoBOX 23 Nydalen, 0410 Oslo, Norway
Email: andrea.ba...@digia.com | Phone : +47 210 80 420 | Fax : +47 21080439
http://qt.digia.com |Qt Blog: http://blog.qt.digia.com/ |Qt Facebook:
www.facebook.com/qt |Qt Twitter: @QtbyDigia
--
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and any attachments are intended only for use by the named
addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you
are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any
action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please
contact the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments
accompanying it. Digia Plc does not accept liability for any corruption,
interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this message.
-
--
QtCreator/qmakeparser.cpp:42
// Parser ///
#define fL1S(s) QString::fromLatin1(s)
namespace { // MSVC2010 doesn't seem to know the semantics of static ...
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 07/10/2014 12:20 PM, Ch'Gans wrote: On 09/07/14 19:53, Andrea Barna wrote: Hi, I am Andrea from Digia Qt, I have recently taken over the Qt businessin your region. Hi Andrea, All the best for your new position! I noticed that you downloaded the trial version of Qt last year and Iwas wondering whether the evaluation went well. It would be helpful to understand why you were evaluating Qt, and learn more about what type of application you are developing. I downloaded your evaluation version of Qt to see how different it is from the open source one. I am especially interested in embedded and industrial application and as such I was curious about your Boot to Qt technology. I was not really surprised to discover that your proprietary Boot to Qt technology is based on the open-source Yocto project [1], and I think that instead of keeping this technology closed, you should be the official maintainer of the Qt5 Yocto layer (lot of work is needed there, and you have handles in-house), I think you should contact the Linux Foundation [2], they will be glad to see you being a major actor in the open-source embedded Linux world. Furthermore is there anything that Digia–Qt can help you with? Definitely yes: please open up your open source based commercial/proprietary boot to Qt technology. I am not asking that because I am an open-source fanatic, I am asking that because this is the only reliable and efficient way to get Qt massively adopted on the embedded/industrial Linux market, I think that Digia should be a (publicly visible) key actor in this sector. Maybe one day you will be able to replace your Code once, run everywhere with Code once, run everywhere, without pain!. Getting Qt5 + Yocto + OpenGL-ES running across different ARM SoCs is a real pain. Best regards, Chris PS: No disrespect to you, Digia, Nokia, TrollTech and all the Qt trolls, hat off and thumb up to all you guys! I am just tired to see a beautiful open-source SW community being permanently fooled by professional closed-source HW company. Please don't be part of this masquerade! PS2: I've CC'ed the Qt developer mailing list (public archived available [3]), hoping this could be useful to someone, somehow, someday. [1] https://www.yoctoproject.org/ [2] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/contact [3] http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/ I'm curious how you think Digia can fund future development of things like Boot to Qt if they give it away for free? I look forward to hearing about your project. Best Regards, Andrea Andrea Barna | Junior Sales Executive Digia Norway AS, Sandakerveien 116, PoBOX 23 Nydalen, 0410 Oslo, Norway Email: andrea.ba...@digia.com | Phone : +47 210 80 420 | Fax : +47 21080439 http://qt.digia.com |Qt Blog: http://blog.qt.digia.com/ |Qt Facebook: www.facebook.com/qt |Qt Twitter: @QtbyDigia -- PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any attachments are intended only for use by the named addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments accompanying it. Digia Plc does not accept liability for any corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this message. - ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 10/07/2014 11:19 p.m., Mitch Curtis wrote: On 07/10/2014 12:20 PM, Ch'Gans wrote: On 09/07/14 19:53, Andrea Barna wrote: Hi, I am Andrea from Digia Qt, I have recently taken over the Qt businessin your region. Hi Andrea, All the best for your new position! I noticed that you downloaded the trial version of Qt last year and Iwas wondering whether the evaluation went well. It would be helpful to understand why you were evaluating Qt, and learn more about what type of application you are developing. I downloaded your evaluation version of Qt to see how different it is from the open source one. I am especially interested in embedded and industrial application and as such I was curious about your Boot to Qt technology. I was not really surprised to discover that your proprietary Boot to Qt technology is based on the open-source Yocto project [1], and I think that instead of keeping this technology closed, you should be the official maintainer of the Qt5 Yocto layer (lot of work is needed there, and you have handles in-house), I think you should contact the Linux Foundation [2], they will be glad to see you being a major actor in the open-source embedded Linux world. Furthermore is there anything that Digia–Qt can help you with? Definitely yes: please open up your open source based commercial/proprietary boot to Qt technology. I am not asking that because I am an open-source fanatic, I am asking that because this is the only reliable and efficient way to get Qt massively adopted on the embedded/industrial Linux market, I think that Digia should be a (publicly visible) key actor in this sector. Maybe one day you will be able to replace your Code once, run everywhere with Code once, run everywhere, without pain!. Getting Qt5 + Yocto + OpenGL-ES running across different ARM SoCs is a real pain. Best regards, Chris PS: No disrespect to you, Digia, Nokia, TrollTech and all the Qt trolls, hat off and thumb up to all you guys! I am just tired to see a beautiful open-source SW community being permanently fooled by professional closed-source HW company. Please don't be part of this masquerade! PS2: I've CC'ed the Qt developer mailing list (public archived available [3]), hoping this could be useful to someone, somehow, someday. [1] https://www.yoctoproject.org/ [2] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/contact [3] http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/ I'm curious how you think Digia can fund future development of things like Boot to Qt if they give it away for free? Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers. Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux. On the side, Qt3 (yes this is not a mistake, it is a three) is officially supported by Yocto (courtesy of Intel) for the sake of LSB compliance... http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-qt3/tree/README Chris I look forward to hearing about your project. Best Regards, Andrea Andrea Barna | Junior Sales Executive Digia Norway AS, Sandakerveien 116, PoBOX 23 Nydalen, 0410 Oslo, Norway Email: andrea.ba...@digia.com | Phone : +47 210 80 420 | Fax : +47 21080439 http://qt.digia.com |Qt Blog: http://blog.qt.digia.com/ |Qt Facebook: www.facebook.com/qt |Qt Twitter: @QtbyDigia -- PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any attachments are intended only for use by the named addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments accompanying it. Digia Plc does not accept liability for any corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this message. - ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On Friday 11 July 2014 10:05:03 Christian Gagneraud wrote: Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers. Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux. Participating in Yocto by maintaining the Qt5 layer and working on Boot to Qt are orthogonal to each other. Digia could do both if it wanted to. Or someone else could do the maintaining of the Qt 5 layer in Yocto. I don't see the problem with that either: the Qt Project has a lot of people from different companies collaborating together. We don't depend on Digia doing everything. Besides, IIRC the Boot to Qt project was trying to use the Android base layer because that's the best BSP that most silicon vendors provide. Notably, the vendors not participating in Yocto. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Support for your evaluation of Qt
On 11/07/2014 11:22 a.m., Thiago Macieira wrote: On Friday 11 July 2014 10:05:03 Christian Gagneraud wrote: Boot To Qt for Embedded Linux (Not talking about android here), is based on Yocto (which is open-source), there exists a Qt5 layer (Dedicated Yocto sub-project), and I think that Digia should be the official maintainer of this project. Digia could work hand and hand with Silicon Company like Intel, Texas Instrument, Freescale, Xilinx (these companies maintain their own SoC specific Yocto layers). Everyone would win if the Qt5 Layer was in a good shape and tested on platform based on the above-mentioned SoC's manufacturers. Today, these SoC manufacturers provide SDKs (Linux kernel + cross toolchain + demo image) and few provide a SDK that contains Qt5. I think it is Digia's role to help spread the Qt technology on embedded Linux. Participating in Yocto by maintaining the Qt5 layer and working on Boot to Qt are orthogonal to each other. Digia could do both if it wanted to. Well at least before they started Boot to Qt w/ Android, working on boot to Qt implied polishing the Yocto Qt5 layer or writing another one from scratch. They obviously did some work on that and it's a pity that nothing have been given back to the community. That was my point. Or someone else could do the maintaining of the Qt 5 layer in Yocto. I don't see the problem with that either: the Qt Project has a lot of people from different companies collaborating together. We don't depend on Digia doing everything. No, Qt doesn't depend on Digia, but Digia depends on Qt! When you look at their Qt Enterprise Embedded, it's Qt, QtCreator, QtSimulator, GNU, Linux, Android, with a pinch of Enterprise plug-in's and add-on's all well packed together. Besides, IIRC the Boot to Qt project was trying to use the Android base layer because that's the best BSP that most silicon vendors provide. Notably, the vendors not participating in Yocto. They might have switched to Android (Well, apparently not really [1], Yocto is used both for targeting Android and Pure Embedded Linux), but AFAIK you can boot to Qt in less than 0.5s with a bare embedded Linux (using Yocto or similar), whereas it takes 10 times longer with Android. Having said all these, Digia has its own business model, maybe I was expecting Digia to behave much like Nokia, my mistake. Chris [1] http://linuxgizmos.com/qt-embedded-gui-adds-yocto-recipes-hops-up-emulator/ ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
