The correct thread is this one
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-December/008700.html
On 17 December 2012 08:45, Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On 16.12.2012, at 16:36, a.gra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm trying to use the "Generic Linux Device" feature of QtCreator 2
Hi,
On 17 December 2012 08:45, Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On 16.12.2012, at 16:36, a.gra...@gmail.com wrote:
> So what's your problem? In general, yes, "Generic Linux Device" should work.
ehm I wrongly sent this incomplete email :)
I should have sent a second one, with complete bug report.
Pleas
On 16.12.2012, at 16:36, a.gra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I'm trying to use the "Generic Linux Device" feature of QtCreator 2.6
> to connect to another Linux machine and try to deploy and execute a Qt
> application on it.
>
> The machine where I'm trying to deploy is a normal Xubuntu 12.1
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 03:42:59PM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Bache-Wiig Jens
> wrote:
> >> If you create the actions in C++, you'd still have to repeat each and
> >> every one in QML, unless we provide a way to iterate over the ones
> >> that should be in a menu,
>> How about having ToolBar.addAction() for convenience? It is exactly what we
>> do for widgets.
>
> Widgets is a toolkit for an imperative language. Looping over lists
> and adding things individually is acceptable there. In a declarative
> language it is really not the right way to go. Even if
>>
>> What is so terrible about it? QtWidgetEnables would be private API, only
>> used by components internally and we would not need to load the module on
>> embedded, or am I missing something?
>
> I don't see how you'd avoid loading the module on embedded. Because
> the components are writte
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Bache-Wiig Jens
wrote:
>> If you create the actions in C++, you'd still have to repeat each and
>> every one in QML, unless we provide a way to iterate over the ones
>> that should be in a menu, or a toolbar.
>
> How about having ToolBar.addAction() for convenience
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Bache-Wiig Jens
wrote:
>> Having a common base class was something I thought of last summer or
>> so. I still think maybe it can work. But we won't get the benefit of
>> it unless we change the QWidget menu system to take the base class
>> pointers, and deal with
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Attila Csipa wrote:
> I don't necessarily care how different a shiny new API implementation is and
> if the fact that my application runs on it is purely coincidental based on
> how I use those APIs, but not having a way to say "YES, I know you bumped an
> API vers
> But if you are writing a 100% declarative UI you'd probably wish to
> avoid linking against widgets. So I guess you're saying regular old
> QActions should be exposed just for putting a declarative UI onto
> legacy apps, and also there should be a new QQuick action, which is an
> unrelated class
On 16 December 2012 20:05, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Shawn Rutledge
> wrote:
>> How can you expose it without needing to link to the widgets library?
>> or without sharing implementation?
>
> Your C++ application adds it's widget actions to the root context. Your
> a
On Dec 16, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> On 16 December 2012 15:32, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
>> I did not say the idea was not useful. My point was that it is not required
>> since we already have access to everything the common base class would give
>> you. Action is a QObject, so
On 16 December 2012 15:32, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
> I did not say the idea was not useful. My point was that it is not required
> since we already have access to everything the common base class would give
> you. Action is a QObject, so when we expose it to QML, we can already access
> text, to
NOTE: please ignore my previous message, damn GMail web interface :(
Hi,
I'm trying to use the "Generic Linux Device" feature of QtCreator 2.6
to connect to another Linux machine and try to deploy and execute a Qt
application on it.
The machine where I'm trying to deploy is a normal Xubuntu 12.1
Hi,
I'm trying to use the "Generic Linux Device" feature of QtCreator 2.6
to connect to another Linux machine and try to deploy and execute a Qt
application on it.
The machine where I'm trying to deploy is a normal Xubuntu 12.10 with
SSH server installed.
>From my working machine to that machine,
> Having a common base class was something I thought of last summer or
> so. I still think maybe it can work. But we won't get the benefit of
> it unless we change the QWidget menu system to take the base class
> pointers, and deal with them polymorphically; or deprecate the old
> QAction and hav
On 14/12/2012 8:27 PM, Martin Smith wrote:
> +1
>
> my problem with "I would prefer that you didn't submit this" is that -1 is
> often used without including an explanation of what is wrong and how it
> should be fixed.
>
> I like "This requires more work" better, but I think it will still be abu
> Subject: Re:RE: [Development] ELF Can run much platform
>
>
> I didn't descript my question clearly. My question is, in another way,
> following.
> The file qt-sdk-linux-x86-opensource-2009.02.bin can run any platform, such
> as redhat5, redhat6,
> ubuntu12, and so on. How does it can do that?
On quarta-feira, 12 de dezembro de 2012 18.31.47, Trismer Technologies wrote:
>
>Does anyone has information about roadmap of Qt5 for iOS ? Digia promises
> this port in next year but I'd like to know how the current blockers will
> be removed: the most important one - V8 javascript for iOS
On 14 December 2012 20:06, Alan Alpert <4163654...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Bache-Wiig Jens
> wrote:
>> I have been lurking in the discussion a bit but I guess it is time for me to
>> pitch in. It is hard to keep up with 10 different threads at once. :)
>>
>> I find t
Short summary for the TL;DR crowd:
I don't necessarily care how different a shiny new API implementation is
and if the fact that my application runs on it is purely coincidental
based on how I use those APIs, but not having a way to say "YES, I know
you bumped an API version, YES, I know there
21 matches
Mail list logo
