On 2013-01-22, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Sune, especially for you: will you try and patch Qt to change the sonam=
e if we=20
don't do it?
Sorry for answering a bit late.
Given that we haven't yet formally published Qt5, no.
if we had, then it would be a definately
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:56:27PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
this isn't about a cover-up, but about not making a fuss about a virtual
non-event (no pun intended). changelog entries, etc. are ok (like for
any bugfix), while changing the soversion seems just a bit over the top.
Why is
] QtMultimedia BIC / header cleanliness issue
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:56:27PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
this isn't about a cover-up, but about not making a fuss about a
virtual non-event (no pun intended). changelog entries, etc. are ok
(like for any bugfix), while changing the soversion
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:44:07PM +, Koehne Kai wrote:
It makes the file name out of line with the other .so file names. There's a
good chance that this will break some deployment scripts which do just cpy
lib*.5.so
Then those scripts are really broken, and we should discover it before we
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:40:23 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:14:03AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013 15.33.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd say we add the virtual destructors. Better
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:40:23 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:14:03AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013 15.33.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd say we add the virtual destructors.
-Original Message-
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:40:23 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:14:03AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013 15.33.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:29:53PM +0100, Shaw Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:40:23 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
imo no. just pretend that it never happened.
at this point there aren't many packages which are considered stable,
and even fewer packages which depend on this
On terça-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2013 11.40.23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I'd say we add the virtual destructors. Better to deal with the fallout
now
then in the future.
And rename the libraries to libQt5Multimedia.so.6 ?
imo no. just pretend that it never happened.
Sune,
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd say we add the virtual destructors. Better to deal with the fallout now
then in the future.
Cheers,
Lars
On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On sexta-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2012 19.11.32, Sze Howe Koh
On segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013 15.33.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd say we add the virtual destructors. Better to deal with the fallout now
then in the future.
And rename the libraries to libQt5Multimedia.so.6 ?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira
On 25 December 2012 01:35, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On segunda-feira, 24 de dezembro de 2012 06.30.58, Sascha Cunz wrote:
But strictly spoken, I would rather say no: BC is BC no matter what silly
mistakes it includes (I have actually had to deal with code that used the
On sexta-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2012 19.11.32, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
On 25 December 2012 01:35, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
On segunda-feira, 24 de dezembro de 2012 06.30.58, Sascha Cunz wrote:
But strictly spoken, I would rather say no: BC is BC no matter what silly
On segunda-feira, 24 de dezembro de 2012 06.30.58, Sascha Cunz wrote:
Adding a new virtual implies changing the layout of the virtual table. If
we append the virtual, the order of the existing virtuals should not
change, so the calls should still make through.
Given the two classes:
On 23 December 2012 06:20, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Hello
Now that Qt 5.0 is out, I've been doing some clean up tasks I had been putting
off. One of them, to properly do the headersclean test, turned up that
QtMultimedia did not have this test at all. And here's what
On domingo, 23 de dezembro de 2012 11.50.18, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
For consistency with the other interfaces, I suggest simply adding
empty virtual destructors. I believe this won't break any existing
code; the only code that should be affected is deletion via pointers
to
16 matches
Mail list logo
