On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 10 de abril de 2013 11.55.24, Bob Hood wrote: >> No doubt you meant what you said. However, it hardly changes the fact that >> the one omitted is rather ubiquitous, regardless of your personal feelings >> about it. I have no love for Microsoft (especially after Windows 8), and I >> hate Apple and their ecosystem snobbery with a passion. However, as a >> commercial developer, I understand the need to support them as part of basic >> business practices. While I may curse them like a sailor privately, I >> never allow my prejudices to reach my customers through my product. > > Actually, it's pure statistics. > > Operating systems where Qt current is known to run: > > Windows > Mac OS X > Linux > *BSD > Solaris > QNX > > The majority of those have Perl. > > And really, I installed ActivePerl on my IT-locked-down-and-virus-scanning > laptop easily. I *really* do not understand what the big deal is -- was my > experience atypical? > > If you want to build a hugely complex framework like Qt, with a million lines > of code, please understand you'll need to get a beefy machine and install > some > dependencies. If you don't want to build, try using one of the pre-built > binaries. > > Let me give you another important point: > > we're trying to make the source releases to be as close as the repositories > on > which we (Qt developers) develop Qt. Why? Here are a few reasons: > > * we expect that most people who build Qt from sources are Qt developers > themselves (majority of users will download binaries and the stats prove > it); > > * we want to reduce the need of testing of the source releases by > "leveraging" the testing that is done daily by developers (that is, if the > source releases are substantially different from the repositories, the fact > that dozens of people compile Qt daily proves nothing); > > * we want the source packages to have cryptographic verifiability that they > weren't tampered with, by having the sources match *exactly* the > repository, which is already cryptographically verifiable. > > I understand this makes some people's lives a bit (or a lot) harder. I > understand Christian's concern of managing a farm of computers (by the way, > don't you have a centralised software deployment solution?) > > I'm just hoping that you guys understand that the changes are done for good > reasons, they aren't done without forethought. And that Perl has been an > industry standard for 3 decades. > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
OK, I'll bit. Lets see here. Open Web browser, type http://www.qt-project.org, click the "Downloads" button at the top. Start looking for a compatible release. OH 64 bit Qt.. Wait that is Qt 5. Next section. Qt 4.8.4.. Looking ... looking ... looking.. Hmm. Nothing about a VS2010 SP1 64 bit windows installer. FAIL. It is a really BAD Assumption that just because I Need to build Qt means that I AM a Qt developer. Qt is a Tool for me to use to build my apps. I REQUIRE 64 bit on windows. YOU Never provided that with the Qt 4.8.x series so I am FORCED to build Qt from scratch. And just because a "majority" download the installer does not mean "ALL". It is YOUR JOB AS A Qt DEVELOPER/MAINTAINER to make MY life easier. That is your job. It takes about 1 year to get a new piece of software approved to be on the computing systems I have to deal with. So, while we may not have admin on our boxes we can _eventually_ get the compilers and such for our systems. Asking for Perl just delays us even longer. And _my_ solution if I had the time would be to rewrite what ever perl is doing in C++ so we can get rid of perl. Lots of other large projects do things like this to make it easier for their developers to get up and running with a minimal amount of fuss. Why can't Qt. Cheers --- Mike Jackson _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
