Am Mittwoch, dem 16.11.2022 um 11:11 -0500 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> Does anyone object then to supporting only Qt5 for
> 2.4.0 (and forward)?
No. I think now is the time to do it.
--
Jürgen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-deve
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 11/16/22 14:29, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > commit d9847302359b7f6d5ca02b97b3b323d7f6bc3df7
> > Author: Pavel Sanda
> > Date: Wed Nov 16 21:23:01 2022 +0100
> >
> > Drop C++17 if init-statements to support older compile
On 11/16/22 14:29, Pavel Sanda wrote:
commit d9847302359b7f6d5ca02b97b3b323d7f6bc3df7
Author: Pavel Sanda
Date: Wed Nov 16 21:23:01 2022 +0100
Drop C++17 if init-statements to support older compilers.
I find this syntax hard to read anyway. I'd personally support making it
part of our
On Wed, 2022-11-16 at 16:49 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Ok, if you don't want to kill --enable-qt5 and various -with-qt-* we
> should be fine.
>
> Pavel
Ah, now I see your point. For me that was not even a question. :-)
In the sense that we change the default but the option flags remain.
--
José
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 03:16:05PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> The following issue seems pretty bad:
>
> https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/12215
>
> Is there someone who is brave enough with time to attempt a fix?
>
> If no one fixes it in time, shall we postpone 2.4.0 or proceed with
> 2.4.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 06:03:04PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 à 17:57, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > I don't know. What do others think? Do we go all-in and drop Qt4 and do
> > all the clean up now to simplify the code? That would indeed feel nice.
> >
> > Or do we leave it
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 05:53:15PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 ?? 14:24, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> >I am afraid you just tunnelled into year 2020 :)
>
> Good grief. Is this better with my latest commit?
Better, now we have to get rid of C++17 if init-statements :)
diff --git
Le 16/11/2022 à 17:57, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
I don't know. What do others think? Do we go all-in and drop Qt4 and do
all the clean up now to simplify the code? That would indeed feel nice.
Or do we leave it as is, and just officially not support Qt4, so that if
some (from what I understand,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 05:51:30PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 à 17:11, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
> >
> > > Well, if barely anyone tests with Qt 4 (I'm only using Qt 5.15), it's
> > > already unsupported i
Le 16/11/2022 à 14:24, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
I am afraid you just tunnelled into year 2020 :)
Good grief. Is this better with my latest commit?
What puzzles me is that the gcc C++ status page says that gcc 4.9
supports fully C++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html
JMarc
--
lyx-d
Le 16/11/2022 à 17:11, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
Well, if barely anyone tests with Qt 4 (I'm only using Qt 5.15), it's
already unsupported in practice and making the necessary changes would be
(1) cumbersome and (2) a waste of re
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 01:25:40PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:50:27PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:54:29AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:31:45PM +, José Matos wrote:
> > > > > It seems there are two questio
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
> Well, if barely anyone tests with Qt 4 (I'm only using Qt 5.15), it's
> already unsupported in practice and making the necessary changes would be
> (1) cumbersome and (2) a waste of resources (little gain in supporting
> versions
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 04:28:05PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 ?? 16:16, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> >I don't think any. But my point was that the current ones who use qt5
> >must use specific switches for configure and it might be better not
> >to disrupt that. If the proposed d
Am Wed, 16 Nov 2022 16:28:05 +0100
schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> Le 16/11/2022 à 16:16, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> > I don't think any. But my point was that the current ones who use qt5
> > must use specific switches for configure and it might be better not
> > to disrupt that. If the proposed de
Le 16/11/2022 à 16:16, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
I don't think any. But my point was that the current ones who use qt5
must use specific switches for configure and it might be better not
to disrupt that. If the proposed defaults transition won't change
functional qt5 configure switches I have no obje
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:00:09PM +, José Matos wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-11-16 at 14:16 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > The disadvantage of this is that it disrupts maintaners scripts to
> > build
> > a new version which is supposed to bring rather minor fixes...
> >
> > Pavel
>
> That is true in
On Wed, 2022-11-16 at 14:16 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> The disadvantage of this is that it disrupts maintaners scripts to
> build
> a new version which is supposed to bring rather minor fixes...
>
> Pavel
That is true in theory. Do you known any distribution that still uses
qt4 when building 2.3
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 19:38, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:51:34AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 03:12:40PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > > > Still, I am wondering why we
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 ?? 14:03, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> >On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 05:11:05PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>Des dropping this cause a break in gc 4.9? If so I can revert that.
> >
> >Yes, it does.
>
> I see that
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 09:49:04PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I have a disruptive question : would a patch setting Qt5 as default platform
> be accepted ? Not many people can compile on Qt4 these days.
The disadvantage of this is that it disrupts maintaners scripts to build
a new version
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:01:46PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> Yes, I'm happy to do that. I have not been following the list closely, so
> don't know what patches might need to go in, but I'll have some time over
> the next few weeks.
Thanks much. Debian starts with gradual freezing in m
Le 16/11/2022 à 14:03, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 05:11:05PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Des dropping this cause a break in gc 4.9? If so I can revert that.
Yes, it does.
I see that Yuriy committed a fix for gcc 4.9 at 888ff9c1 yesterday. Does
it work now?
I have
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 05:11:05PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Des dropping this cause a break in gc 4.9? If so I can revert that.
Yes, it does.
Pavel
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
24 matches
Mail list logo
