On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 07:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 5/10/2011 2:16 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >
> > I hope to see some official acceptance for Maalit in Meego 1.3. After
> > all, it's gotta have a serious input method framework. The libmeegotouch
> > dependency seems to be the only pro
On May 10, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 de May de 2011 10:42:06 Michael Hasselmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:29 +0300, Sakari Poussa wrote:
>>> That (Qt5) is a vision with timeline. It's not 10 years, it is 1+ year
>>> as you can read from the blog.
>>>
>>>
On 5/10/2011 2:16 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
I hope to see some official acceptance for Maalit in Meego 1.3. After
all, it's gotta have a serious input method framework. The libmeegotouch
dependency seems to be the only problem so far. But you need to be loud,
clear and direct to Nokia that they
On Tuesday, 10 de May de 2011 10:42:06 Michael Hasselmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:29 +0300, Sakari Poussa wrote:
> > That (Qt5) is a vision with timeline. It's not 10 years, it is 1+ year
> > as you can read from the blog.
> >
> > These are big and complex things which need long cycles t
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:16 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 01:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > regardless of that, for MeeGo libmeegotouch is not our preferred way
> > of
> > writing applications, or even a supported one.
> > so cleaning that up is a target anyw
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 01:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> regardless of that, for MeeGo libmeegotouch is not our preferred way
> of
> writing applications, or even a supported one.
> so cleaning that up is a target anyway.
As Meego 1.3 is planned for 6 months from now, that doesn't se
On 5/10/2011 1:42 AM, Michael Hasselmann wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:29 +0300, Sakari Poussa wrote:
That (Qt5) is a vision with timeline. It's not 10 years, it is 1+ year as you
can read from the blog.
These are big and complex things which need long cycles to be planned and
communicated
On Tuesday, 10 de May de 2011 11:29:09 Sakari Poussa wrote:
> > "In future version*s*" could be 10 years from now, for all we know
> > (given it took 5 years from Qt 4 to Qt 5 already, the latter not being
> > there yet). You really think you need to prepare for that right now?
>
> That (Qt5) is a
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:29 +0300, Sakari Poussa wrote:
> That (Qt5) is a vision with timeline. It's not 10 years, it is 1+ year as you
> can read from the blog.
>
> These are big and complex things which need long cycles to be planned and
> communicated correctly. That's what we (MeeGo) are doi
On May 9, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Michael Hasselmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:49 +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
As we know, in the future Qt versions the QtGraphicsView will be
deprecated in the favor of SceneGraph.
>>>
>>> Never heard of this. AFAIK, the scene graph doesn't even exist
On May 9, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Carsten Munk wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Alberto Mardegan :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/09/2011 01:23 PM, Sakari Poussa wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> As we know, in the future Qt versions the QtGraphicsView will be
>>> deprecated in the favor of SceneGraph.
>>
>> Never heard of this. AFAIK,
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:49 +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
> >> As we know, in the future Qt versions the QtGraphicsView will be
> >> deprecated in the favor of SceneGraph.
> >
> > Never heard of this. AFAIK, the scene graph doesn't even exist as an API
> > yet.
> > What's your source?
> I believe http
2011/5/9 Alberto Mardegan :
> Hi,
>
> On 05/09/2011 01:23 PM, Sakari Poussa wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> As we know, in the future Qt versions the QtGraphicsView will be
>> deprecated in the favor of SceneGraph.
>
> Never heard of this. AFAIK, the scene graph doesn't even exist as an API
> yet.
> What's yo
Hi,
On 05/09/2011 01:23 PM, Sakari Poussa wrote:
[...]
As we know, in the future Qt versions the QtGraphicsView will be deprecated in
the favor of SceneGraph.
Never heard of this. AFAIK, the scene graph doesn't even exist as an API yet.
What's your source?
Ciao,
Alberto
--
http://blog.mar
On May 6, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Michael Hasselmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:46 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
>> MTF as a whole got deprecated with less than minimal resources on
>> it...
>
> That's not quite what the git logs say. I count 60 commits for this
> Friday alone. Looks rat
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shane Bryan
wrote:
>> Have you checked out the "mlite" library that has some of the stuff you
>> mention?
>
> If you'll look closer, I mention that at least two of the items
> I listed are in mlite, in some state of completion. So yes ;)
Dret, sorry about that,
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 07:25:43AM -0400, Ville M. Vainio wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Shane Bryan
> wrote:
>
> > OK, I'll start, but please don't take this list, or my response to this
> > thread as a complaint to the change away from MTF, but rather observations
>
> Have you check
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Shane Bryan wrote:
> OK, I'll start, but please don't take this list, or my response to this
> thread as a complaint to the change away from MTF, but rather observations
Have you checked out the "mlite" library that has some of the stuff you mention?
_
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 11:22:02PM +0200, jeremias bosch wrote:
>
> In general:
> Rotation and size/position of the vkb most like need mtf. Also
> controlling of the
> screen (dim/blank) you need mtf since at least qmsystem2 is also deprecated.
>
> There might be other things which mtf supports a
In general:
Rotation and size/position of the vkb most like need mtf. Also
controlling of the
screen (dim/blank) you need mtf since at least qmsystem2 is also deprecated.
There might be other things which mtf supports and no api is around to
do it otherwise.
(maybe we should start to gather
On 5/6/2011 12:45 PM, Michael Hasselmann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:46 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
MTF as a whole got deprecated with less than minimal resources on
it...
That's not quite what the git logs say. I count 60 commits for this
Friday alone. Looks rather well maintained and ac
>On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 11:46 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> MTF as a whole got deprecated with less than minimal resources on
> it...
That's not quite what the git logs say. I count 60 commits for this
Friday alone. Looks rather well maintained and active to me (also check
[0], [1])
Again, wh
On 5/6/2011 11:03 AM, Michael Hasselmann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 08:11 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Examples are xdg-utils -> libcontentaction -> libmeegotouch
for 1.3, libmeegotouch needs to be removed, so yes, any patches to
reduce deps on it are very welcome...
Who drives that "n
2011/5/6 Michael Hasselmann :
> On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 08:11 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> > Examples are xdg-utils -> libcontentaction -> libmeegotouch
>>
>> for 1.3, libmeegotouch needs to be removed, so yes, any patches to
>> reduce deps on it are very welcome...
>
> Who drives that "need"?
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 08:11 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Examples are xdg-utils -> libcontentaction -> libmeegotouch
>
> for 1.3, libmeegotouch needs to be removed, so yes, any patches to
> reduce deps on it are very welcome...
Who drives that "need"? What are the technical reasons why i
On 5/6/2011 8:04 AM, Carsten Munk wrote:
Hi,
I was surprised to find libmeegotouch in MeeGo Core package group (as
a dependancy, I think) for 1.3. Is this intentional and if not, is it
fair game to send patches to help reduce dependancies to libmeegotouch
in the core system?
Examples are xdg-ut
Hi,
I was surprised to find libmeegotouch in MeeGo Core package group (as
a dependancy, I think) for 1.3. Is this intentional and if not, is it
fair game to send patches to help reduce dependancies to libmeegotouch
in the core system?
Examples are xdg-utils -> libcontentaction -> libmeegotouch
B
27 matches
Mail list logo
