On Wednesday 18 March 2015 07:44:12 Bo Thorsen wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
We promised not to break source or binary compatibility. Where are we
doing
that?
Removing classes is as binary incompatible as you can possibly make it.
They're not removed. They
On Wednesday 18 March 2015 08:39:28 Florian Bruhin wrote:
But if I understood correctly, the consensus here seems to be to
deprecate it in Qt 5.5 and remove it with Qt 6, which sounds much more
reasonable to me.
That's not the consensus.
People panicked when they read Tuukka's blog saying
On Wednesday 18 March 2015, Bo Thorsen wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand the reasons on why you want to remove this one,
On Tuesday 17. March 2015 15.04.19 Corentin Jabot wrote:
Regarding QJSEngine, some things are unclear to me.
Let's say I have a QObject-derived class. how do I create an instance of
that class from a script ?
c++ : class Foo : public QObject { Q_OBJECT }; js : var foo = new Foo()
2015-03-18 11:00 GMT+01:00 Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com:
On Tuesday 17. March 2015 15.04.19 Corentin Jabot wrote:
Regarding QJSEngine, some things are unclear to me.
Let's say I have a QObject-derived class. how do I create an instance of
that class from a script ?
On 18/03/15 07:44, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand the reasons on why you want to remove this
Den 18-03-2015 kl. 08:31 skrev Knoll Lars:
On 18/03/15 07:44, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand
On 18/03/15 08:35, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 18-03-2015 kl. 08:31 skrev Knoll Lars:
On 18/03/15 07:44, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46
* Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com [2015-03-18 07:31:00 +]:
On 18/03/15 07:44, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
*
Den 17-03-2015 kl. 23:45 skrev Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand the reasons on why you want to remove this one, I think
that this goes against the promise of
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2015 08:34
An: development@qt-project.org
Betreff: [Development] Deprecating modules with 5.5
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:14:38 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand the reasons on why you want to remove this one, I think
that this goes against the promise of compatibility at [1]:
Qt essentials define the
Regarding QJSEngine, some things are unclear to me.
Let's say I have a QObject-derived class. how do I create an instance of
that class from a script ?
c++ : class Foo : public QObject { Q_OBJECT }; js : var foo = new Foo()
How do I call a c++ function from a js script ? That use case
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 08:33:46 CET, Knoll Lars wrote:
* Qt WebKit
While I understand the reasons on why you want to remove this one, I think
that this goes against the promise of compatibility at [1]:
Qt essentials define the foundation of Qt on all platforms. They are
available on all
On Monday 09 February 2015 22:52:34 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Guido Seifert wrote:
Did something like that happen before?
Yes, RHEL has never shipped QtWebKit, as far as I know because of support
(especially with security updates) concerns. (They're likely to also not
ship QtWebEngine, but that
Well start with the easiest understanable reasons. People come from old
platforms whith old applications and they don't know what their upcoming
hardware platforms will be, so they decide why not go to Qt first and then
decide, which platform is usable for us. Thats a pretty common theme and if
Guido Seifert wrote:
Did something like that happen before?
Yes, RHEL has never shipped QtWebKit, as far as I know because of support
(especially with security updates) concerns. (They're likely to also not
ship QtWebEngine, but that will be a topic for RHEL 8. QtWebEngine did not
exist yet
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
The real answer is simple: all of them. We do our best to avoid embedded
libraries (and yes, we sometimes fail to do it, and that's a bug for us).
+1, same here (Fedora).
If I where to start at some place I would choose V8 and ffmpeg, but the
real
...and you're keeping up to date with all the security patches
to Qt, Chromium, etc.? If not, your better experience is leaving
your application's users vulnerable.
We have the capability to turn around an update quickly if necessary and
try to use system libraries where possible, especially
please keep in mind that in the enterprise environment Windows CE /
Windows Embedded Compact is still an important platform!
I understand that, but to which point?
Mac OS X 10.6 was also an important platform used by about 10% of the mac
users. Yet, we decided to drop support for it.
Il 08/02/2015 17:58, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
So we come back to this question again and again: if you can't upgrade the OS
and upgrade the compiler, why do you want to upgrade Qt?
Because people want to use the latest features / bugfixes for developing
their product, and yet they need to
On Sunday 08 February 2015 19:15:18 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Il 08/02/2015 17:58, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
So we come back to this question again and again: if you can't upgrade the
OS and upgrade the compiler, why do you want to upgrade Qt?
Because people want to use the latest
On Sunday 08 February 2015 13:41:59 Dr. Nico Wallmeier wrote:
In the enterprise environment these devices are shipped with a specific
Windows CE / Embedded Compact and stay on this version up to EOL.
Normally it is not possible update these units to newer OS versions
(only patch updates may be
On Sunday 08 February 2015 19:15:18 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Il 08/02/2015 17:58, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
So we come back to this question again and again: if you can't upgrade the
OS and upgrade the compiler, why do you want to upgrade Qt?
Because people want to use the latest
Am 08.02.2015 um 21:25 schrieb Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com:
On Sunday 08 February 2015 19:15:18 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Il 08/02/2015 17:58, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
So we come back to this question again and again: if you can't upgrade the
OS and upgrade the compiler, why do you
Den 08-02-2015 kl. 21:25 skrev Olivier Goffart:
On Sunday 08 February 2015 19:15:18 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Il 08/02/2015 17:58, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
So we come back to this question again and again: if you can't upgrade the
OS and upgrade the compiler, why do you want to upgrade Qt?
El Friday 06 February 2015, André Somers escribió:
All the while Qt is spending effort to catch up, deprecating compilers
and platforms because they can't take the latest Javascript engine to
it, users are hapily using browers like Firefox and Chrome.
Perhaps it is time to conclude that Qt
On Friday 6. February 2015 08.42.53 André Somers wrote:
Knoll Lars schreef op 5-2-2015 om 16:28:
But we don’t have much of a choice, if we want to deliver an up to date
web engine.
Perhaps it is time to ask the question then: do we want to do that? Do
we really need to?
It seems to me,
On Feb 6, 2015, at 09:21, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com
wrote:
On Friday 6. February 2015 08.42.53 André Somers wrote:
Knoll Lars schreef op 5-2-2015 om 16:28:
But we don’t have much of a choice, if we want to deliver an up to date
web engine.
Perhaps it is time to
On 06/02/15 08:42, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nl wrote:
Knoll Lars schreef op 5-2-2015 om 16:28:
But we don’t have much of a choice, if we want to deliver an up to date
web engine.
Perhaps it is time to ask the question then: do we want to do that? Do
we really need to?
If you ask me as
On 06 Feb 2015, at 09:32, Ziller Eike eike.zil...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
What simpler alternative do you have in mind?
One possibility that would cover the use case of “show some simple styled
html without javascript” case (e.g. documentation browsers) would be to give
QTextBrowser
=bernhard-lindner.de@qt-
project.org] Im Auftrag von André Somers
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Februar 2015 08:43
An: development@qt-project.org
Betreff: Re: [Development] Deprecating modules with 5.5
Knoll Lars schreef op 5-2-2015 om 16:28:
But we don’t have much of a choice, if we want to deliver an up
It is just not practical to ship a second copy of dozens
of system libraries, all built as part of QtWebEngine. This is a nightmare
in terms of disk space, RAM use, potential for symbol conflicts and
delivery
of security updates.
These are all valid concerns but ultimately of secondary
On 2015-02-06 09:22, Robert Knight wrote:
It is just not practical to ship a second copy of dozens
of system libraries, all built as part of QtWebEngine. This is a nightmare
in terms of disk space, RAM use, potential for symbol conflicts and
delivery of security updates.
These are all valid
On 05/02/15 09:31, Bo Thorsen b...@vikingsoft.eu wrote:
Den 04-02-2015 kl. 15:56 skrev Olivier Goffart:
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:23:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
On 04/02/15 10:20, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
Also, is it not time to decide which platform are we going to stop
+1 for dropping VS2008. For those with thin wallets it's easier to
upgrade nowadays anyway to the VS2013 Community Edition.
/Rgrds Henry
On 2015-02-05 08:31, Bo Thorsen wrote:
Den 04-02-2015 kl. 15:56 skrev Olivier Goffart:
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:23:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
On 04/02/15
Hello,
please keep in mind that in the enterprise environment Windows CE /
Windows Embedded Compact is still an important platform!
Kind regards,
Nico Wallmeier
+1 for dropping VS2008. For those with thin wallets it's easier to
upgrade nowadays anyway to the VS2013 Community Edition.
On Thursday 5. February 2015 23.08.03 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 5 February 2015 at 16:44, Simon Hausmann
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
On Thursday 5. February 2015 16.32.08 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 09:50, Hausmann Simon
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com
Knoll Lars schreef op 5-2-2015 om 16:28:
But we don’t have much of a choice, if we want to deliver an up to date
web engine.
Perhaps it is time to ask the question then: do we want to do that? Do
we really need to?
It seems to me, that it isn't really possible to do. Not in a way that
doesn't
Did something like that happen before? Sounds strange to me to ship only parts
of a framework.
I imagine that this would also be a support nightmare... Qt5 is installed, but
some other packages
don't work or are not installable because they have a dependency to
QtWebEngine. In a way it
Knoll Lars wrote:
But we don’t really have a choice, as there is no upstream for Qt WebKit
anymore. This implies that we’d have to fully develop that fork on our own
to support is. That in turn requires a team far larger than what we have.
So it’s simply not doable.
The thing is, QtWebEngine
On 05/02/15 15:19, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Knoll Lars wrote:
But we don’t really have a choice, as there is no upstream for Qt WebKit
anymore. This implies that we’d have to fully develop that fork on our
own
to support is. That in turn requires a team far larger than what
, February 3, 2015 09:36
To: Knoll Lars
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Deprecating modules with 5.5
On 3 February 2015 at 09:29, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:24, Jaroslaw Staniek stan...@kde.org wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 08:33, Knoll
Knoll Lars wrote:
Yes, and I am sure, they have huge issues keeping up with the development
of competing web technologies. I’ve been there and done that with first
KHTML, then Qt WebKit for many years. The fact is that HTML5 these days is
a huge pig, and supporting all of it using WebKit and
On Thursday 05 February 2015 08:48:20 Knoll Lars wrote:
Yes, it’s not possible to drop 2008 currently without dropping Windows
Embedded support. So not something we can do until we have a solution for
Windows Embedded.
Microsoft will not add support to an old Windows Embedded to a new VS. The
On Thursday 5. February 2015 16.32.08 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 09:50, Hausmann Simon
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
Functionality wise, what type of class do you wrap with QScriptClass?
Examples (you can guess from what project by looking at my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 04.02.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Cristian Adam:
On 04.02.2015 10:23, Knoll Lars wrote:
In principle I agree. The problem with 2008 is that this is
currently the only compiler supporting Windows Embedded 7, so we
can’t easily get rid of it. Dropping
On Thursday 05 February 2015 15:55:52 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
- Using V8 means we need to drop support for arm64 (aka AArch64), powerpc,
powerpc64 and s390x. I understand this *might* be a minor side effect for
the Qt project, but still important for us.
I'm pretty sure
This would be the same as dropping the Windows Embedded Compact support.
So its a clear no from my side.
--
Björn Breitmeyer | bjoern.breitme...@kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbHCo KG, a KDAB Group company
Germany: +49-30-521325470, Sweden (HQ): +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt
Yes, it’s not possible to drop 2008 currently without dropping Windows
Embedded support. So not something we can do until we have a solution for
Windows Embedded.
Cheers,
Lars
On 05/02/15 09:32, Björn Breitmeyer bjoern.breitme...@kdab.com wrote:
This would be the same as dropping the Windows
On 5 February 2015 at 16:44, Simon Hausmann
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
On Thursday 5. February 2015 16.32.08 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 09:50, Hausmann Simon
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
Functionality wise, what type of class do you wrap with
On Thursday 05 February 2015 21:39:16 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
[snip]
[0] https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3148
It would have been the same problem with WebKit. Neither Google nor Apple
cares about supporting any build environment more than 1-2 years old. When
we still was part
On Friday 06 February 2015, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
On Thursday 05 February 2015 21:39:16 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
[snip]
[0] https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3148
It would have been the same problem with WebKit. Neither Google nor Apple
cares about
On Thursday 05 February 2015 14:33:13 Rutledge Shawn wrote:
[snip]
I agree. For every kind of documentation in every app which has a help
system, and in other use cases where people use real web browsers without
needing all the features, it would be great to have a lightweight
alternative
On Thursday 05 February 2015 09:55:33 Andreas Holzammer wrote:
Am 04.02.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Cristian Adam:
On 04.02.2015 10:23, Knoll Lars wrote:
In principle I agree. The problem with 2008 is that this is
currently the only compiler supporting Windows Embedded 7, so we
can’t easily get
On Friday 06 February 2015 01:19:17 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
On Friday 06 February 2015, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
On Friday 06 February 2015 00:15:48 you wrote:
About QtWebEngine, do you know what system libraries you have problems
with it duplicating? I think we can
(Resending as I replied to Allan in private by mistake))
On Friday 06 February 2015 00:15:48 you wrote:
[snip]
But at least there we could just disable JIT, which is what we did. When
we
had V8 around (if I remember correctly it was used for QML, but my memory
might be failing me) we
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 11:59:11 André Somers wrote:
Knoll Lars schreef op 3-2-2015 om 10:51:
So Qt 5.6 can drop mingw support?
There are currently no plans in dropping mingw. But webengine is currently
not supported on that compiler.
So I guess that does mean that it will no longer
I'll try to summarize my POV on this issue in this mail:
- I agree with Lars that HTML5 is a huge pig ;)
- Bundling so many stuff in that package is definitely a non go for Debian.
- I do also understand they require a competitive product. But on the same
line I do also think the level of
Am 05.02.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
On Thursday 05 February 2015 09:55:33 Andreas Holzammer wrote:
Am 04.02.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Cristian Adam:
On 04.02.2015 10:23, Knoll Lars wrote:
In principle I agree. The problem with 2008 is that this is
currently the only compiler
On Thursday 05 February 2015, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
I'll try to summarize my POV on this issue in this mail:
- I agree with Lars that HTML5 is a huge pig ;)
- Bundling so many stuff in that package is definitely a non go for Debian.
- I do also understand they
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 07:33:46 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt Declarative (Qt Quick 1)
* Qt Script
All of these modules are by now a
On 04/02/15 10:20, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 07:33:46 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt Declarative (Qt
On 03/02/15 23:26, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 20:14:42 Knoll Lars wrote:
Yes, making the Qt WebView module work on all desktop platforms could
be a
possible solution.
I think the consensus here is that we need some more work on Qt WebView /
On 04.02.2015 10:23, Knoll Lars wrote:
In principle I agree. The problem with 2008 is that this is currently the
only compiler supporting Windows Embedded 7, so we can’t easily get rid of
it. Dropping gcc 4.4 is afaik not a big problem.
QNX 6.5.0 has GCC 4.4.2. I don't know how important QNX
Den 04-02-2015 kl. 15:56 skrev Olivier Goffart:
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:23:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
On 04/02/15 10:20, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
Also, is it not time to decide which platform are we going to stop
supporting in Qt 5.6?
For example, if we were to decide to
It's relatively simple to compile x264 with visual studio 2013+. I was just
reading about it.
On 4 Feb 2015 11:52 pm, Guido Seifert warg...@gmx.de wrote:
If you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice, but just saying:
In one of my projects I needed the x264 libs:
If you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice, but just saying:
In one of my projects I needed the x264 libs:
http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html
and the webkit. I was unable to compile x264 with MSVC. Dropping webkit
would leave me in the inconvenient situation that either I
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:23:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
On 04/02/15 10:20, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
Also, is it not time to decide which platform are we going to stop
supporting in Qt 5.6?
For example, if we were to decide to start using some of the C++11, we
should drop
On 3 February 2015 at 08:33, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt Declarative (Qt Quick 1)
* Qt Script
All of these
On 03/02/15 09:24, Jaroslaw Staniek stan...@kde.org wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 08:33, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com
wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
*
2015-02-03 10:33 GMT+03:00 Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt Declarative (Qt Quick 1)
* Qt Script
All of these modules are
On 3 February 2015 at 09:29, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:24, Jaroslaw Staniek stan...@kde.org wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 08:33, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com
wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove
Hi,
Functionality wise, what type of class do you wrap with QScriptClass?
Simon
Original Message
From: Jaroslaw Staniek
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 09:36
To: Knoll Lars
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Deprecating modules with 5.5
On 3 February 2015 at 09:29
On Tuesday 03 February 2015 20:14:42 Knoll Lars wrote:
Yes, making the Qt WebView module work on all desktop platforms could be a
possible solution.
I think the consensus here is that we need some more work on Qt WebView /
webengine before we can drop QtWebKit from the binaries.
That said,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 07:47:14AM +, Ziller Eike wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
*
On 03/02/15 20:25, André Pönitz apoen...@t-online.de wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 07:47:14AM +, Ziller Eike wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com
wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them
Knoll Lars schreef op 3-2-2015 om 10:51:
So Qt 5.6 can drop mingw support?
There are currently no plans in dropping mingw. But webengine is currently
not supported on that compiler.
So I guess that does mean that it will no longer be Tier 1 then.
André
On 03/02/15 10:08, Alexey Pavlov alex...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-03 11:49 GMT+03:00 Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com:
On 03/02/15 09:35, Alexey Pavlov alex...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-03 10:33 GMT+03:00 Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as
2015-02-03 11:49 GMT+03:00 Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com:
On 03/02/15 09:35, Alexey Pavlov alex...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-03 10:33 GMT+03:00 Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
As long as WebEngine is not (yet?) a “full replacement of
On 03/02/15 08:47, Ziller Eike eike.zil...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@theqtcompany.com
wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
*
Hi,
I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely
remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are:
* Qt WebKit
* Qt Declarative (Qt Quick 1)
* Qt Script
All of these modules are by now a couple of years old, don’t receive
updates above the bare minimum
83 matches
Mail list logo
