Can someone elaborate on how "one package per OS" reduces the testing
burden significantly? We still have to check every
platform/configuration that is inside the package. All that changes is
that the testers install from one big package instead of smaller
packages. I doubt that one person will check the whole windows package
(for example). At least I will not volunteer to do that :X
On 21/12/2016 19:37, Jake Petroules wrote:
LET'S DO IT! And thank you for following through on this idea.
This will reduce our package testing burden significantly which is very
important because it lowers the barrier to entry for us to actually add new
platforms/installers. For example, adding tvOS to the combined
macOS/iOS/Android package would be valuable.
I would omit the host architectures (it provides no useful value since there
are multiple host architectures in some cases) and target platforms from the
filenames, though (like -android, -qnx, -android-ios), because they aren't
there for the Windows package so it would be more consistent. The download
descriptions should detail what each package contains.
Also, can we simply subsume the QNX packages into the base enterprise packages?
i.e. combine qt-enterprise-linux-x64-android and qt-enterprise-linux-x64-qnx?
Or is there a licensing-related issue around that? And why do we need different
packages based on the license, anyways?
On Dec 20, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Jani Heikkinen <jani.heikki...@qt.io> wrote:
Hi all,
I finally managed to do testing how big combined windows installer would be. I was
a bit surprised that it is only ~3.3 GB, which is still smaller than combined
mac-android-ios installer ;) Ok, this is done from 5.8 packages & binaries so
situation might be a bit different in 5.9 where we will have some new binaries to
be done. But in the other hand we will/should drop some so I think the size of
combined one should be still manageable.
So I propose we will offer following set of offline installers from Qt 5.9 ->
- For linux we will have 3 installers (instead of existing 5):
* qt-enterprise-linux-x64-android (already delivering this)
* qt-opensource-linux-x64-android (already delivering this)
** Desktop gcc 64-bit
** Android x86
** Android armv7
* qt-enterprise-linux-x64-qnx (already delivering this)
** Desktop gcc 64-bit
** Qnx x86
** Qnx armv7
** NOTE: I don't think we can offer QNX 7 binaries yet so QNX 6 binaries
will be offered like 5.8.0
- For mac we will have 2 installers (instead of existing 6):
* qt-enterprise-mac-x64-android-ios (already delivering this)
* qt-opensource-mac-x64-android-ios (already delivering this)
** Desktop clang 64-bit
** Android x86
** Android armv7
** iOS
- For windows we will have 3 installers (instead of existing 17):
* qt-enterprise-windows-x86 (new)
* qt-opensource-windows-x86 (new)
** Desktop MSVC 2013 x64
** Desktop MSVC 2015 x86
** Desktop MSVC 2015 x64
** Desktop MSVC 2017 x64
** Desktop MinGW 5.3 x86
** UWP MSVC 2015 x86
** UWP MSVC 2015 x64
** UWP MSVC 2015 armv7
** UWP MSVC 2017 x86
** UWP MSVC 2017 x64
** UWP MSVC 2017 armv7
** Android x86
** Android armv7
* qt-enterprise-linux-x64-qnx (already delivering this)
** Desktop MinGW 5.3 x86
** Qnx x86
** Qnx armv7
** NOTE: I don't think we can offer QNX 7 binaries yet so QNX 6 binaries
will be offered like 5.8.0
br,
Jani
________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt...@qt-project.org> on behalf
of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:05 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.9
On quarta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2016 07:53:40 PST Jake Petroules wrote:
How about we have one package per host platform which includes all possible
hosts and targets compatible with it? Then we have 3 packages, ever.
Or, at least, one binary per platform + compiler combination. So that's 1
Linux package, 1 macOS package, 3 Windows packages today, with a 4th Windows
(MSVC 2017) coming for 5.9.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
