[Touch-packages] [Bug 1446865]

2016-01-27 Thread Alexey Chernov
I'm actually aware of the problem with session management since last summer, now I've upgraded my stuff to have more KF5-based applications and suprisingly found it still just doesn't work. So I've dived deeper into it this time, reading all the discussion here and last part of bug #341930, both

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1446865]

2016-01-27 Thread Alexey Chernov
(In reply to Thomas Lübking from comment #26) > (In reply to Alexey Chernov from comment #25) > > > According to what? > According to "This is not fixed in years and each and every session > management code was ported as "#if 0"" > If there was some relev

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1446865]

2016-01-27 Thread Alexey Chernov
(In reply to Thomas Lübking from comment #22) > > 5. I completely don't like the proposed way to preserve the compatibility > > with (4) and make > > the use case of broken session management client implementation legal and > > default, but > > also try to allow proper-written apps to still

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1446865]

2016-01-27 Thread Alexey Chernov
(In reply to Andreas Hartmetz from comment #29) > We cannot change Qt in a way that breaks existing applications. Qt5 has not > exactly just been released, and commercial customers value stability very > much. Some of them even pay for Qt licenses, which is good for all Qt users, > so really, we

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1446865]

2016-01-27 Thread Alexey Chernov
(In reply to Thomas Lübking from comment #24) > (In reply to Alexey Chernov from comment #23) > > > Comments like this clearly don't help > Seriously, you asked for breaking clients because that's what you'd "like" > to do - what did you expect to hear? That's sim