On 2/6/13 4:33 PM, "Mitch Curtis" wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:52:29 PM Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> yesterday we did a bug triaging and fixing day here in the Digia Oslo
>> office. While everyone always looks at the bugs a little bit, it is
>> sometimes good to act
On terça-feira, 12 de fevereiro de 2013 19.44.46, Mumtaz Ahmad wrote:
> I am trying to configure my project on windows (mingw)
> for linux-arm-gnueabi-g++ with QT5 and i am giving following command
> -platform win32-g++ -xplatform linux-arm-gnueabi-g++ -static -opensource
> -confirm-license -debu
I am trying to configure my project on windows (mingw)
for linux-arm-gnueabi-g++ with QT5 and i am giving following command
-platform win32-g++ -xplatform linux-arm-gnueabi-g++ -static -opensource
-confirm-license -debug
Configure.exe fails as it goes in architecture detection app.detectArch()
a
-Original Message-
From: Iikka Eklund
Sent: 12. helmikuuta 2013 12:47
To: releas...@qt-project.org
Subject: [Releasing] Preparing Qt 5.0.2 release
Hi,
Making of Qt 5.0.2 patch release has started:
- Plan is to move into 'release' branch 18th February.
So there is roughly 6 days left t
> I am trying to build configure in QT5 on linux host. But it seems like
> there is windows specific code in some of its files
> like configureapp.cpp and environment.cpp. Is there any solution to this?
Yes, for cross-compiling Qt on a linux host for MinGW, the configure
script can be used, at
I am trying to build configure in QT5 on linux host. But it seems like
there is windows specific code in some of its files like configureapp.cpp
and environment.cpp. Is there any solution to this?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
ht
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:19:22AM +0100, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Friday 1. February 2013 14.34.26 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > i'd rather have a bot post a gentle ping after the proposed 3-month
> > timeout, and then follow through within a few (four?) weeks.
>
> That is a bit destructive. T
On Friday 1. February 2013 14.34.26 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > But if we automate this the timeout period needs to be long enough.
> > 2-3 months is certainly too short, we need to be conservative with
> > these kinds of automatisms. A year sounds more reasonable.
> >
> >
>
> i don't think thi
