>>
>> The problem is RHEL5.
>
> Yes, but the OP also explicitly mentioned RH 6 ("I tried once to get it to
> build on RH6, but even there I got
> the impression that I did not have the required versions of the required
> libraries.").
>
> So I understand they're sitting on thousands of 8 years old RH 5 releases,
> don't even want to update system libraries (by shipping their own versions -
> or maybe even by preventing the distribution itself from fetching newer
> versions), and as such seem unable to compile even earlier (5.0, 5.1, 5.2,
> ...) Qt versions, apparently even on a more up to date (fully updated?) RH 6
> release.
>
> As I see it the current issue (using a kernel feature which is not present on
> an 8 years old RH 5) can be ignored. Qt 5 will never compile for them, as it
> seems, since even when that feature in question would be removed again, they
> would get past that point in compilation, but would still hit problems with
> outdated (system) libraries.
>
> So I would rather focus on RH 6 and ignore RH 5.
>
I am perfectly happy ignoring RH5 as well.
I am looking forward to RH6 and for reasons other than the 5%
increase in the probability that I can build Qt5. :-)
BTW I am perfectly happy with Qt 4.8.6 (The devil I know).
Yes. the data visualization components of Qt5 would be nice,
but I could not care less about QML.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Bill
> Cheers,
> Oliver
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
