Hi all,
There seems to be some build break in qt5.git stable integration with latest
changes:
Qt Continuous Integration System7:40 AM
Patch Set 3:
qtscript failed to compile :(
../3rdparty/javascriptcore/JavaScriptCore/jit/JITStubs.cpp:1027:9: note:
expanded from
-- Mensagem encaminhada --
Assunto: [ANNOUNCE] libinput 0.1
Data: qua 26 fev 2014, 22:03:32
De: Jonas Ådahl
Para: wayland-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
The first official release of libinput, 0.1, is now available.
There is no API/ABI stability promised for this release, but wh
On 26 Feb 2014, at 18:26, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:22, Gunnar Sletta wrote:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2014, at 00:42, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>>
>>> We are currently looking into a way to render a 10-bit image in QML.
>>
>> I'm going to assume we're talking abou
Thanks for the reply.
On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:22, Gunnar Sletta wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2014, at 00:42, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>
>> We are currently looking into a way to render a 10-bit image in QML.
>
> I'm going to assume we're talking about Qt Quick 2.0.
Yes, indeed.
>
> As in 10-bit grayscale or G
Em qua 26 fev 2014, às 12:18:41, Kevin Krammer escreveu:
> On Tuesday, 2014-02-25, 09:00:21, Wolfgang Baron wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not using
> > dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on all platforms
> > (including mswind
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:18:51 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> If anything need to be changed is to be more strict with the rules.
Hear hear!
Also, be more strict with the spirit of the rules. If you get a feature in
just before the branching step, you minimize testing/integration time. If y
On Wednesday 26 February 2014 08:17:35 Koehne Kai wrote:
> [1]: I know that Qt 4.7/4.8 were kind of special for various reasons, and
> that it wasn't all caused by the unpredictable schedule. But it definitely
> didn't help.
4.8 WAS very special.
4.8 was never really planed. When 4.7 was release
On Tuesday, 2014-02-25, 09:00:21, Wolfgang Baron wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not using
> dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on all platforms
> (including mswindows).
QtDBus already works on Windows.
As far as I know it is just
I have just reported the bug: QTBUG-37092
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-37092
We can continue the discussion there.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Mauro
On 26 February 2014 11:27, Mauro Brenna wrote:
> You can find the example program sourcecode in my first e-mail.
> I will try to o
You can find the example program sourcecode in my first e-mail.
I will try to open a bug then.
Thanks again,
Mauro
On 26 February 2014 11:06, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 10:56 AM, Mauro Brenna wrote:
>
>> no I haven`t report it in a bug tracker yet. I still do not know if it
>> is
Koehne Kai [kai.koe...@digia.com]
> > [...]
> > > Before merging a feature the maintainers consider if yes or not the
> > > feature is ready for integration. If bad decisions are made, I don't
> > > think the "time- based" releases have anything to do with that.
> >
> > It has to some degree, beca
On 02/26/2014 10:56 AM, Mauro Brenna wrote:
> no I haven`t report it in a bug tracker yet. I still do not know if it
> is just an issue related to my specific platform.
If you had an example program to reproduce the problem, I could check on
my side whether the problem can be reproduced. Maybe th
Hello Peter,
no I haven`t report it in a bug tracker yet. I still do not know if it is
just an issue related to my specific platform.
If I interpreted correctly what Thiago is trying to explain, maybe using
QT5 together with some other low level library of some specific version I
might have install
On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
>>> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
>>> of purpose, not "master".
>>
>> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the bra
Em qua 26 fev 2014, às 10:29:46, Peter Hartmann escreveu:
> Hello,
>
> it might be the socket is bind()ing to a local address when it does not
> need to; would you be able to file a bug report with a program to
> reproduce the problem?
The interesting part to me are those SIOCGIFINDEX calls. We d
Hello,
it might be the socket is bind()ing to a local address when it does not
need to; would you be able to file a bug report with a program to
reproduce the problem?
Thanks,
Peter
On 02/26/2014 09:28 AM, Mauro Brenna wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> The answer is YES
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
> [...]
> > Before merging a feature the maintainers consider if yes or not the
> > feature is ready for integration. If bad decisions are made, I don't
> > think the "time- based" releases have anything
Hello Jan,
Thanks for the suggestion.
The answer is YES they are behaving quite differently:
Here the output while in the for loop:
QT4.8.5
sendto(7, "Broadcast message 0", 19, MSG_NOSIGNAL, {sa_family=AF_INET,
sin_port=htons(45454), sin_addr=inet_addr("255.255.255.255")}, 16) = 19
sendto(7,
18 matches
Mail list logo
