Re: [Interest] Save / load file contents on android
Hi, I am hitting a brick wall: I need to write to an external location (e.g. download or documents folder) in Android. As "requestLegacyExternalStorage" is no longer possible, I cannot publish my otherwise finished App, it needs the possibility to export its data. (How) did you guys solve the DocumentFile API problem? So far, it's a show stopper for me. Thanks! Sebastian Am 03.09.2021 um 11:47 schrieb ekke: > > I'm in the same situation as you ;-) have set > requestLegacyExternalStorage ATM > > last weeks had much work moving all my projects from Qt 5.13.2 to > 5.15.5, so I can prepare for Qt 6.2 > > now there will be 3 weeks vacation > > then support of Android 11 file storage will be high on my TODO list > > ... and hoping then to find some docs / tips HowTo support this from > Qt ;-) > > -- http://www.classintouch.de - Tablet-Software für Lehrer ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Compile Qt 6.2.1 from source
Hi I did both instalations from git. The first one that was ok, I git cloned to /home/joao/qt6.2/qt5/ and configured it from /home/joao/qt6.2/qt5/qt6-build (bad naming the directory qt6.2 since I configured the dev branch) The second installation that failled I git cloned to /home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5, configured from /home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5/qt6.2.0-build . I did a checkout to branch 6.2.0 before the "perl init-repository" Both installations were configured with $../configure -developer-build -- -D QT_BUILD_TESTS_BY_DEFAULT=OFF $cmake --build . --parallel 6 I also tried $cmake --build . -j 6 got the same error. So it is the same configuration but in different directories and different branchs. Just to give a background, of what I'm trying to achive is to test this bug fix in linux [QTBUG-96202] SoundEffect does not work in Qt6.2 beta3 in Windows and Linux - Qt Bug Tracker | | | | [QTBUG-96202] SoundEffect does not work in Qt6.2 beta3 in Windows and Li... | | | and patch in https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtmultimedia/+/371129 The fix is schedule to 6.2.1, since this branch doesnt exist yet, I compiled the dev branch, where the patch is already applied, actually is worse now since it crashs the program. Then I build the branch 6.2.0 with the patch applied manually but it failled. Then I build branch 6.2.0 without the patch, it failled. ThanksJoão Em domingo, 3 de outubro de 2021 18:18:42 GMT+1, Thiago Macieira escreveu: On Saturday, 2 October 2021 16:54:59 PDT joao morgado via Interest wrote: > lrelease error: cannot create > '/home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5/qt6.2.0-build/qtbase/./translations/linguist_en.qm' > : No such file or directory lrelease error: cannot create > '/home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5/qt6.2.0-build/qtbase/./translations/qtwebsockets_en > .qm': No such file or directory Can you share the exact cmake or configure command-line you tried? And when you say you built 6.2.0, was that from a set of tarballs (and if so, which one(s)?) or was it by switching your git checkout to the git tag? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Compile Qt 6.2.1 from source
On Saturday, 2 October 2021 16:54:59 PDT joao morgado via Interest wrote: > lrelease error: cannot create > '/home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5/qt6.2.0-build/qtbase/./translations/linguist_en.qm' > : No such file or directory lrelease error: cannot create > '/home/joao/qt6.2.0/qt5/qt6.2.0-build/qtbase/./translations/qtwebsockets_en > .qm': No such file or directory Can you share the exact cmake or configure command-line you tried? And when you say you built 6.2.0, was that from a set of tarballs (and if so, which one(s)?) or was it by switching your git checkout to the git tag? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Qt 5.15 LTS vs Qt 6.2 LTS
On 10/2/21 7:47 PM, Ulf Hermann wrote: I might be wrong with those steps because I don't know the approval process. Yet, I'm sure there is some pragmatic way to produce what you want. You may want to share your ideas on what it actually takes. There is not a pragmatic way within what Qt has. To start with one cannot use Git or AGILE.There has to be a full formal SDLC following the approved format prior to starting the coding of each release. There has to be a coding standard heavily mirroring the BARR standard. It's a highly controlled and regulated world and for good reason. https://barrgroup.com/embedded-systems/books/embedded-c-coding-standard and you cannot start with a code base that has bugs over a decade old. While all of this is possible, it obviously is a lot of work. If you want to do the work yourself, let's discuss the details here. As to how to *remove* the bugs the process is simple and from what I hear the same thing being written into the formal FDA regulation proposal. Time consuming and resource intensive, but not complex. I will state it one more time, at least my understanding of it, but the regulation will formulate it into something as good as law. 1. identify bug with semi-repeatable use-test-case. 2. test with previous "official" releases backwards in time until it is no longer semi-repeatable. 3. walk forward one check-in at a time from whatever was included in the formal release. 4. when you hit the check-in that is either the straw that broke the camel's back or introduces the shiny new bug, remove it from the code base. The process doesn't care about what came after or how many license sales were based on that particular check-in. The process only cares about bug amputation. This is the process followed by pretty much every regulated industry. Generally removal also involves some number of people being sent into an isolated universe in some dark little room to try and salvage some portion of the code which now must be amputated, perhaps even fixing the bug, but regulation focuses on amputation. The FDA and other regulated environments choose removal of a sales pitch item over the lives of hundreds/thousands/unknowns each and every time. As far as "cleaning up Qt" that is already being done by quite a few organizations that have left Qt completely due to the behavior of Qtc. See below. If you want to pay for such work to be done, you may want to get in contact with the Qt Company. Please. Qtc has been coming onto the OpenSource mailing list for years beating that same drum. It has a high pitched tinny sound that is harmful to the ears of human and animal alike. Removal of Qt 5 OpenSource LTS was the final straw for many. *All* OpenSource projects of any significance have OpenSource LTS versions. Removal of the LTS told businesses Qt is no longer an OpenSource project of any significance thusly should not be used and businesses should not allow their employees to contribute to it on company time. The sad thing is Qtc is trapped in a 1980s business model. They should really take a good look at Eiffel to see how that model works out in the 2000's. https://www.eiffel.com/ https://www.zoominfo.com/c/eiffel-software-inc/139314020 Do not even have a D listing https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/top-results.html?term=Eiffel%20Software=1 Kind of sad given the lone wolf operation Eiffel Tower Software does https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.eiffel_tower_software.7936880af69f1c39f36fad01081c8d0d.html It's previous iteration had a "modelled" sales figure of $3.56 million https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.interactive_software_engineering_inc.ed26de719e4b5a2e0c1bd97489dbfa67.html It doesn't matter how good you think you are doing right now, that's where such a business model ends up. Today's companies don't pay royalties. That business model died with products like .RTLink and is exactly why those products died. Today's companies use OpenSource. Sometimes they donate money. Other times they allow their employees to contribute to the project during working hours. Sometimes they actually purchase reasonably priced support contract.s The days of being able to sell tools that are mostly just libraries and live a lifestyle one would like to become accustomed to are long since gone. Most of the "commercial" operations behind OpenSource projects make the bulk of their money selling project level software development to businesses. *The Digia iteration of Qtc sank that boat for all time.* I was brought in to sweep up behind a Digia debacle that a client paid a ton of money for. They were paying $250/hr for my services 100% remote and considering it a deal compared to what they paid for unusable trash previously. Because a state machine class had just been added to Qt the "consultant" from Digia tried to use it (most likely to put a "win" on the Web site) for a
