Every Linux distro uses X.org, which uses XCB.
Including openSUSE 11.1, but just any XCB is not enough. It needs to be
more recent than some version. For users with an incompatible version of
XCB, I think we can provide a better user experience than hitting
compiler errors when building
On 18/03/2012, at 9:58 AM, Pier Luigi wrote:
2012/3/17 Bradley Smith bsm...@baysmith.com:
The workaround for systems that don't meet the minimum requirements is to
upgrade. Running brand, new and bleeding edge Qt 5 on an old system is not
a
target for us. Simply upgrade -- at the very
On 18/03/2012, at 11:53 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On domingo, 18 de março de 2012 11.43.02, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
That's fine when you are only building an application to run on your
machine, but for people who want to distribute Qt5 apps, this would be an
undesirable solution. You'd
On 20/02/2012, at 1:29 PM, Lincoln Ramsay wrote:
On 02/17/2012 09:58 PM, ext lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
On the idea itself I'd like to hear some more opinions. Removing qreal
would cause some SC breakage, but you would also get a compile error on
places that could break. Unfortunately the
On 11/02/2012, at 12:47 AM, André Somers wrote:
My suggestion would be this:
1) If possible, documentation goes right above the relevant code
(implementation or declaration)
2) Prefer the implementation over the declaration when you have to choose
3) If neither is possible, prefer the
On 10/02/2012, at 5:13 AM,
marius.storm-ol...@nokia.commailto:marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com
marius.storm-ol...@nokia.commailto:marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote:
I think there are a few issues here:
1) Only Dimitri touches Doxygen code, and it doesn't look like
contributions go in (at least
From: lars.kn...@nokia.commailto:lars.kn...@nokia.com
lars.kn...@nokia.commailto:lars.kn...@nokia.com
Date: 2 February 2012 4:49:45 AM AEDT
To: thiago.macie...@intel.commailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com
thiago.macie...@intel.commailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com,
Sorry for the lack of context (dealing with digest emails while on leave :-P ).
With the talk about logging in this thread, is it of interest / scope to also
have the associated classes support capturing the standard C/C++ streams? By
this, I mean capturing whatever gets logged via std::cout or
On 05/01/2012, at 3:51 AM, Jeremy Lainé wrote:
Replying to myself to try and get the discussion going again.
A summary of API decisions so far:
- we only provide an asynchronous API
- we do not want a manager object (QNAM-style) to avoid users creating a
manager per lookup
- we
On 05/01/2012, at 12:11 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Thursday, 5 de January de 2012 12.07.37, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
On 05/01/2012, at 11:47 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Thursday, 5 de January de 2012 11.03.42, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
This could be perceived as creating a race
Starting a signal name with an underscore could be viewed as a violation of the
C++ standard, depending on how you interpret it. Item 17.4.3.1.2 in the
standard reserves names beginning with an underscore as for use only by the
implementation (ie the compiler):
17.4.3.1.2 Global names
Certain
On 02/01/2012, at 11:06 PM, Richard Moore wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Andreas Aardal Hanssen
andr...@hanssen.name wrote:
Hi Richard, looks really good! For Qt 4, the idea was to have several
backends like you write here. Still we ended up with only one, and it's not
really that
On 03/01/2012, at 11:27 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 de January de 2012 10.57.11, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
Unfortunately, OpenSSL is not part of the LSB, so if you want SSL support on
linux and you want your application to be LSB compliant, you end up having
to link in the
Given Jedrzej's recent post on QMetaType, it sounds like there are people
looking at QMetaType in a bit more detail at the moment. That being the case,
I'd appreciate a few more opinions on QTBUG-15313 which I believe was closed
prematurely. The brief version is that I suggested that the
On 21/12/2011, at 12:19 PM, mark.k...@nokia.com mark.k...@nokia.com wrote:
Posting patches to the JIRA bugreporting system is contrary to the terms of
use for that system.
https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/secure/TermsAndConditions.html
Don't do this.
I know I'll probably be shot down
On 21/12/2011, at 5:14 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
On 21/12/2011, at 12:19 PM, mark.k...@nokia.com mark.k...@nokia.com
wrote:
Posting patches to the JIRA bugreporting system is contrary to the terms of
use for that system.
On 21/12/2011, at 6:16 PM, Alan Alpert wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:52:54 ext craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
On 21/12/2011, at 5:14 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:57 AM, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
On 21/12/2011, at 12:19 PM, mark.k...@nokia.com mark.k...@nokia.com
On 16/12/2011, at 10:37 PM, David Faure wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:21:41 Turunen Tuukka wrote:
So now there is total of 108 improvements and bug fixes available in Qt
Commercial 4.8.0 that are not part of the LGPL release.
While I understand the reasons, I want to state that
On 13/12/2011, at 12:09 AM, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com
marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote:
What is it that you require to upload the results to a cdash, and why
wouldn't qmake be able to do so?
I thought cmake simply ran cdash to upload the results, and certainly qmake
can easily add
On 07/12/2011, at 5:37 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Jeff Mitchell q...@jefferai.org wrote:
At Qt Contributor Day in SF I talked to Alexandra Leisse about
MediaWiki. Specifically, she hates MediaWiki, and I suggested moving to
Confluence, as it's a much, much,
On 08/11/2011, at 9:06 PM, João Abecasis wrote:
Dr Craig Scott wrote:
On 08/11/2011, at 1:31 AM, João Abecasis wrote:
At the bare minimum, I think we should strive to support these compilers:
- GCC 4.2 and up
- MSVC 2008 and later
- Clang (trunk)
On the page above I also put in a
It occurred to me after my previous email that people may not be aware of what
the LSB compilers do, so let me provide just a little bit of info to explain
why they should be considered explicitly in addition to plain GCC compilers. In
a nutshell, when you build your app with the LSB compilers,
On 08/11/2011, at 8:40 AM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2011 19:52:37 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 7 de November de 2011 17:42:22 jan-arve.saet...@nokia.com wrote:
Don't we need to agree on what criteria a platform needs to fulfill in
order to be supported? The supported
On 08/11/2011, at 1:31 AM, João Abecasis wrote:
At the bare minimum, I think we should strive to support these compilers:
- GCC 4.2 and up
- MSVC 2008 and later
- Clang (trunk)
On the page above I also put in a list of platforms, splitting them between
Desktop, Embedded and
On 29/10/2011, at 6:14 AM, lars.kn...@nokia.com lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
On 10/28/11 5:11 PM, ext Stephen Kelly stephen.ke...@kdab.com wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2011 16:24:08 Matt Williams wrote:
On 28 October 2011 14:44, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
I think that's reasonable
25 matches
Mail list logo
