Re: [Development] Licensing of qtbase

On 3.8.2022, 15.21, "Development on behalf of Benjamin TERRIER" mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of b.terr...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 13:05, Florian Bruhin mailto:m...@the-compiler.org>> wrote:

[Development] Setting custom buffer size with Wayland

I'm trying to force my window to follow aspect ratio. On other systems this is possible by changing position/size progrmatically, but Wayland doesn't let to change window position. I heard that it's possible to achieve what I want by passing a buffer less than surface size. I tracked

Re: [Development] Proposing to add (CPU) architecture maintainers

On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 08:52:09 PDT Marius Kittler wrote: > Actually it is not very exciting to see these screenshots because it looks > just like on x86_64 :-) That's a *good* thing. If they looked different, that would point to a bug -- usually endianness issues. > I suppose that the Qt

Re: [Development] Windows plugin customisation: QWindowsKeyMapper

Got it working: https://github.com/lpapp/examples/blob/main/qt-native-event-filter/main.cpp Thanks. > ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Proposing to add (CPU) architecture maintainers

Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2022, 16:35:16 CEST schrieb Thiago Macieira: > POWER and S/390 are very IBM-specific. They're still active, but I don't > think we have much relevance in that market. And Sparc has ceased being > active. For those three I don't think we can hope to expect any kind of >

Re: [Development] Proposing to add (CPU) architecture maintainers

On Mittwoch, 3. August 2022 16:35:16 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 04:56:41 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > > - ARM > > - x86 (Thiago would be the obvious candidate, if he's in for it) > > I agree. I already do this anyway, so it's just formalising something that > exists. > >

Re: [Development] Proposing to add (CPU) architecture maintainers

On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 04:56:41 PDT Marc Mutz wrote: > - ARM > - x86 (Thiago would be the obvious candidate, if he's in for it) I agree. I already do this anyway, so it's just formalising something that exists. > - MIPS > - POWER > - RISC-V > - S390 > - Sparc > > I would expect

Re: [Development] Licensing of qtbase

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 13:05, Florian Bruhin wrote: > > https://www.qt.io/product/features?hsLang=en#js-6-3 lets you see the > individual components of Qt and what license they are available as. > > That's some high level of FUD and BS. If I select LGPLv3, all Qt tools are greyed out (moc,

[Development] Proposing to add (CPU) architecture maintainers

Hi, I'm hitting a wall on architecture-specific patches that aren't x86 (or, to a lesser extent, ARM). I don't know who's responsible for the MIPS assembly we have in QtCore,  nor who to talk to to get qYieldCpu implemented for architectures other than x86 and ARM