> -Original Message-
> From: Mcgovern Rohan [mailto:rohan.mcgov...@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:02
> To: Blasche Alex (Nokia-MP-Qt/Brisbane)
> It does still seem possible to accidentally build a no-op version of
> libQtBluetooth (on Linux and no bluez - which at leas
Blasche Alex (Nokia-MP-Qt/Brisbane) said:
> I don't understand why this definition matters. How does the exact code path
> matter?
Well, it mightn't matter to the user of the API (assuming all code paths
work equally correctly). It matters when attempting to test them, which
is what we were talk
I'm trying to build qtbase (Qt5) with this options:
./configure -v -qpa -developer-build -fast -opensource \
-no-accessibility \
-no-qt3support \
-no-xmlpatterns \
-no-multimedia \
-no-audio-backend \
-no-phonon \
-no-phonon-backend \
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:33:02 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> you don't need sed. use QMAKE_SUBSTITUTES (see creator sources for
> "documentation"). in fact, the shell scripts look easy enough that you
> could rewrite them in qmake entirely.
My latest iteration does exactly this.
https:/
Thiago Macieira said:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 19:01:21 Aaron McCarthy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 06:47:08 pm ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > PS: are the unit tests outside qtbase ever compiled? The qtxmlpatterns
> > > ones
> > > don't build for me.
> >
> > This depen
Thiago Macieira said:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 10:53:40 bradley.hug...@nokia.com wrote:
> > On 02 Nov, 2011, at 01:29 , ext Rohan McGovern wrote:
> > > I also noticed that Brad recently added the ability to pass through
> > > options like -Werror into configure [
> > > http://coderevie
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 18:40:23 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 18:12:58 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > This then introduces the problem of where does FindQt5.cmake get
> > installed from? It would have to be in CMake itself. Seems like an odd
> > thing to do just fo
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 18:12:58 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > But we agreed that including that file when you have more than one target
> > in your CMakeLists.txt is a bad idea.
>
> Well, we agreed that the issue exists. There are non-perfect solutions, but
> the -D options have not been mi
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 17:37:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 16:29:16 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > If you link to a Qt module named Foo, you must do:
> > > -I$QTDIR/include/QtFoo -DQT_FOO_LIB
> > > -L$QTDIR/lib -lQtFoo
> > >
> > > The -D option has been m
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 16:29:16 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > If you link to a Qt module named Foo, you must do:
> > -I$QTDIR/include/QtFoo -DQT_FOO_LIB
> > -L$QTDIR/lib -lQtFoo
> >
> > The -D option has been missing in CMake.
>
> Nope. It's not missing. It's in the UseQt4.cmake fil
On 11/02/11 14:56, ext Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> that idea is a non-starter.
>> it starts with dependencies.
>
> What problems do you see there ?
>
the way you express them. -Lfoo/bar -lbaz definitely doesn't cut it, and
neither does fo
On 11/02/11 13:46, ext Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:33:02 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> what exactly is it that you need cmake itself for?
>
> * Generating Targets files, including not having to care about what the prefix
> or suffix on libraries is, and without doing a
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 15:40:43 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 13:38:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > However, let me make a suggestion: use macros, not variables. We've
> > > run
> > > into this problem before in Qt 4 where CMake did not add the -D
> > > macros
Hi,
Just adding some more fuel to the fire.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>> I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing
>> is not that bad as a build system[1]. It permi
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 15:06:29 you wrote:
> Being able to just state "my target Foo uses packages Bar and Blub" is
> already since quite some time on the TODO for cmake, i.e. so that Foo will
> then link against Bar and Blub, and also get the include directories for
> Bar and Blub (and p
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing
> is not that bad as a build system[1]. It permits compact build scripts.
> It is declarative (very important IMHO). It is extensible.
I like qmake when
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 13:38:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > However, let me make a suggestion: use macros, not variables. We've run
> > into this problem before in Qt 4 where CMake did not add the -D macros
> > that qmake did and then some results were different (unit tests, for
> > examp
Hi, I'm organizing the Qt Contribution Day in San Francisco on Nov 29.
The "discussion" is taking place at the [interest] mailing list, see
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2011-November/58.html
If you are planning to have Qt Project specific discussions, including
those direc
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 10:53:40 bradley.hug...@nokia.com wrote:
> On 02 Nov, 2011, at 01:29 , ext Rohan McGovern wrote:
> > I also noticed that Brad recently added the ability to pass through
> > options like -Werror into configure [
> > http://codereview.qt-project.org/7487 ]. I inten
On Tuesday 01 November 2011, craig.sc...@csiro.au wrote:
...
> If you do that, you create a circular dependency, since CMake requires Qt
> to build its GUI application. Yes, you could build CMake's command line
> tools only, then Qt, then build CMake's GUI app, or alternatively you
> could install
On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:50:11 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:26:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > The use file is a convenience that is relatively common in cmake
> > > modules that adds includes and de
On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On 10/31/11 22:20, ext Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Not sure what the other cmake developers would think about supporting an
> > additional file format for the Config.cmake files, e.g. xml or json, so
> > they could be easily used and gene
On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:33:02 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > what exactly is it that you need cmake itself for?
>
> * Generating Targets files, including not haviing to care about what the
> prefix or suffix on libraries is, and witho
Am Mittwoch, den 02.11.2011, 12:13 + schrieb lars.kn...@nokia.com:
> On 11/1/11 7:31 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote:
> >> A non-optional dependency on cmake for Qt 5.0 is not acceptable from my
> >> perspective.
> >
> >Nor
Hi Mathias,
Getting rid of QContactManagerEngineV2 and QOrganizerManagerEngineV2 is quite
high on the todo list. :-) Plan is to merge the methods to
QContactManagerEngine as you suggested. Actually for organizer there is already
a patch under review: http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,780
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:33:02 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> what exactly is it that you need cmake itself for?
* Generating Targets files, including not haviing to care about what the prefix
or suffix on libraries is, and without doing a bad reimplementation of a
generator for them as
2011/11/2 Thiago Macieira :
>> But am I alone to think that 3 weeks of waiting time is a lot?
>> 15 work day is a lot, how about reducing it to something between 7 and 10
>> work days?
>
> I think the number was chosen so that people who might be on vacations have
> the time to react. But I agree
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:50:11 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:26:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > The use file is a convenience that is relatively common in cmake modules
> > that adds includes and definitions etc, but the more direct way is also
> > possible.
Nope, I also think it is a bit too much. I think it is around a week in
the WebKit project
Kenneth
On 02/11/11 11.14, "ext Olivier Goffart" wrote:
>On Tuesday 01 November 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
>>p
Hi all,
First of all, I'd like to say that especially with my QtContacts
maintainer hat, this discussion is very very interesting, and I am really
happy to see it happening already after a few days from the kick-off of
the qtproject initiative :)
Now, back to businessjust had a chat on IRC wi
On 11/1/11 7:31 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote:
>> A non-optional dependency on cmake for Qt 5.0 is not acceptable from my
>> perspective.
>
>Nor mine.
>
>Quoting André from IRC: a dependency on a buildsystem is acceptable if
>and
On 10/31/11 22:20, ext Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Not sure what the other cmake developers would think about supporting an
> additional file format for the Config.cmake files, e.g. xml or json, so they
> could be easily used and generated also by other tools. I.e. not only by/for
> cmake, but basi
On 11/01/11 15:44, ext Stephen Kelly wrote:
> I would make this dependency on CMake non-optional because it is important to
> be able to use find_package(Qt5) without having to care about whether the
> person who built it had cmake installed at the time.
>
that argument makes no sense whatsoever to
On 02 Nov, 2011, at 01:29 , ext Rohan McGovern wrote:
> Thiago Macieira said:
>> On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 10:55:49 Frans Klaver wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
One more thing: QT_DEPRECATED expands to empty during the Qt build.
Should w
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:14:47 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
> > project.
> >
> > Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:26:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> The use file is a convenience that is relatively common in cmake modules
> that adds includes and definitions etc, but the more direct way is also
> possible.
So we go back to what I said: the names of the individual variables ar
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:26:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> include(${Qt5Declarative_USE_FILE})
Sorry, this should have been include(${Qt5Test_USE_FILE}) obviously.
--
Stephen Kelly | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-5213
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:17:31 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:09:36 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 17:03:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 15:58:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > > It is completely granul
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 15:44:18 ext Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > == Clarification => > >
> > > To avoid misunderstanding:
> > >
> > > * This proposal is not about porting the Qt build system to CMake.
> > > * This would not make Qt dep
On Tuesday 01 November 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt project.
>
> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
> Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginning.
>
>
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:09:36 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 17:03:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 15:58:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > It is completely granular. Qt5Config.cmake and Qt5Use.cmake are just
> > > simple aggregators a
+1 from me :)
Cheers,
Lars
On 11/1/11 5:00 PM, "Peter Hartmann" wrote:
>Hello,
>
>hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
>project.
>
>Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
>Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very begin
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 17:03:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 15:58:10 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > It is completely granular. Qt5Config.cmake and Qt5Use.cmake are just
> > simple aggregators as discussed.
>
> If you have one project per CMakeLists.txt file, yeah, i
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Hartmann
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt project.
>
> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
> Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginning.
>
> Shane
Second :-)
On 02/11/11 10.08, "ext Simon Hausmann" wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 04:00:30 PM ext Peter Hartmann wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
>>project.
>>
>> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and
Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 09:56 +0100 schrieb Robin Burchell:
> Hi Paivi,
>
> > About source-compatibility... As a Qt5 AddOn module QtPim has little less
> > restrictions
> > regarding source-compatibility than Essential modules, see e.g.
> > http://developer.qt.nokia.com/groups/qt_contributor
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 19:01:21 Aaron McCarthy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 06:47:08 pm ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > PS: are the unit tests outside qtbase ever compiled? The qtxmlpatterns
> > ones
> > don't build for me.
>
> This depends on how you configure and build. If the
On 11/02/2011 03:15 AM, Alan Alpert wrote:
> Until the first release of Qt 5 though I don't see anyway to avoid
> QtDeclarative needing a 'sufficiently' recent QtBase. sync.profile implements
> providing that knowledge, although we currently prefer to just always build
> against master. Modular
On 02.11.11 10:08, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 04:00:30 PM ext Peter Hartmann wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt project.
>>
>> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
>> Qt very well,
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 04:00:30 PM ext Peter Hartmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt project.
>
> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
> Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginni
Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 09:56 +0100 schrieb Robin Burchell:
> You should probably also talk to some of the Harmattan contacts guys
> if you haven't already (of which I am one, a few other of which I've
> CC'd). They may have some other ideas on potential changes for
> source-incompatible Qt 5
Hi,
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 06:47:08 pm ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> PS: are the unit tests outside qtbase ever compiled? The qtxmlpatterns ones
> don't build for me.
This depends on how you configure and build. If the forwarding .qmake.cache
files in the Qt modules are not created or overwritten th
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 10:03:12 Rohan McGovern wrote:
> In other words, if you test contains(QT_CONFIG,some_module) in your Qt5
> module, you've made your build behavior implicitly depend on the order in
> which the user happened to run `qmake' over the qt5 modules, which is
> largely
Hello,
I'm one of the guys who have been working on the Lighthouse API changes
for Qt 5 and new Qt 5 APIs like QWindow and QScreen. For those who are
not familiar, QWindow is the low-level Qt abstraction of a native window
that has its own rendering surface (native means whatever the Lighthouse
54 matches
Mail list logo
