Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

> The key point is: The Qt Company, just like Trolltech initially and other > companies in between, does not want mixing open-source Qt and commercial Qt. > Reason is simple: if mixing was allowed, many companies would use it to pay > less for their use of Qt. > It is unfortunate that also real

Re: [Interest] Priority of bugs

Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Just to note that more than “two minor fixes” were done related to widgets in > Qt 5.11.2 Sorry, my bad. I was (wrongly) basing that statement on the contents of the changelist: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/dist/changes-5.11.2 If you filter that Jira link to

Re: [Interest] Priority of bugs

Alex Blasche wrote: > Fact is that Qt is huge and there are not enough work hours in a day to fix them all. I'm a maintainer of a pretty large code base myself so I understand that completely. > (...) some bugs are simply too hard to fix (...) and (...) there are things which are too risky to

Re: [Interest] Priority of bugs

Christoph Feck wrote: > in practice most bug fixing is spent to make the > new features actually work. There is no point in adding features, if > they are not useable because of bugs. Funny you should say that. I actually wish this was true, but take a look at the sad history of QTBUG-52108 for

[Interest] Priority of bugs

Hi, I really hate to be "that guy" again, but I'd just like to know what's going on. Some time ago I complained about bugs not being resolved for many major releases. I was then told my reports were P2 or lower and I can't expect them to be taken care of. That sucks for me but I can understand to

Re: [Interest] PostgreSQL cross compile for Pi

I don't want to be mean Thiago, because I love Qt, I do appreciate your hard work and all the people that make it happen, but you need to consider that you're pretty big part of Qt and things around you do move in a different pace. It's not the same for some of us. As an example consider this P2

Re: [Interest] Qt and MSVC 2017

2017-04-29 17:30 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira : > In practice, we're finding out that due to a perverse effect of the ABI for > DLLs, we may need to release binaries for 2017 and the 2015 ones will not work > for debug-mode builds with 2017. Can you elaborate on what

Re: [Interest] Qt and MSVC 2017

2017-04-29 15:26 GMT+02:00 Igor Mironchik : > Hi, > > And one more question - does anybody has successful story of building Qt 5.8 > or 5.9 with MSVC 2017? I did both and they work ok, though I skipped some of the modules I don't use (notably Quick and WebEngine). 5.8

Re: [Interest] Qt and MSVC 2017

2017-04-29 16:02 GMT+02:00 Mike Jackson : > In theory the 2015 will work as MS did not change the C/C++ runtime with > VS2017. This is a theory of course. I do use it like that for some time now so it's not just a theory. QtCreator complains about abi mismatch in the kit

Re: [Interest] How do you want to select exactly C++11 with GCC 6+?

2017-03-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Marchal : > Could somebody kindly summarize the reasons for adding more options such as > min_c++ or c++latest or restricting to only one C++ version? My reasons: - You get what you ask for: c++11 is c++11, not c++14 or

Re: [Interest] How do you want to select exactly C++11 with GCC 6+?

2017-03-10 18:36 GMT+01:00 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > On sexta-feira, 10 de março de 2017 00:31:03 PST Krzysztof Kawa wrote: >> I'd say if the option is called c++11 it should enable c++11 and >> nothing else (if compiler supports that). > >

Re: [Interest] How do you want to select exactly C++11 with GCC 6+?

2017-03-10 0:18 GMT+01:00 Thiago Macieira : > On quinta-feira, 9 de março de 2017 18:12:57 CET Sérgio Martins wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Thiago Macieira >> > 1) is there a need for qmake to provide a way to select *exactly* C++11, >> > not a later,

Re: [Interest] 5.8.0 configure and -D option with value

2017-01-30 3:16 GMT+01:00 Thiago Macieira : > Please report this. configure changed quite a lot in Qt 5.8 so this may have > got broken. Done. https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-58517 ___ Interest mailing list

Re: [Interest] 5.8.0 configure and -D option with value

2017-01-29 19:43 GMT+01:00 Ben Swerts : > If I'm not mistaken you need to use FOO#1 instead of FOO=1. Hm, thanks but that doesn't seem to work. configure goes through without error, but when I call jom I only see FOO passed to cl i.e. without the value.

[Interest] 5.8.0 configure and -D option with value

Hi, I can't seem to find any info on this. Has something changed in the way I'm suppose to pass defines with values to the configure script in 5.8.0 or is this a bug? It works as expected when I pass e.g. configure -D FOO but when I try configure -D FOO=1 I get an error: ERROR: No value

Re: [Interest] Adding a QStyledDelegate to a tree view

Use C++11 override keyword if you can. It would save you the trouble. 2014-02-21 13:18 GMT+01:00 Graham Labdon graham.lab...@avalonsciences.com: Ahh that was it Thanks -Original Message- From: interest-bounces+graham.labdon=avalonsciences@qt-project.org[mailto: