Any chance of getting source packages like last time?
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Heikkinen Jani
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> New Qt 5.3.1 snapshot available here:
> http://download.qt-project.org/snapshots/qt/5.3/5.3.1/2014-06-03_98/
>
>
>
> Qt5 changes:
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change
Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 10:32:17, Olivier Goffart escreveu:
> In general, i think it would be beneficial to have some public API in
> QObject to create dynamic signals or slots.
This has been asked from the QML-on-Go discussions. We just told them to use
the private QMetaObjectBuilder class.
--
Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 11:12:11, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> IMO it’s probably a mistake to bind the major so version number to the
> number after Qt. There was a reason why Thiago wanted this, but I don’t
> quite remember why.
>
> IMO it would be better to have Qt5 in the lib name as an indication tha
Towards the end of the First Age, naming things was easy: We mortals would
ask Jasmin. And when a new realm was about to be created one would need
to explain why this deserves to come into existence. And what it would be in
the future, and what beings will dwell there, and how they will relate to
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:12:11AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> I’d like to discuss what we want to do with add-ons that are part of
> the Qt 5 delivery, but might want to follow their own versioning
> schemes. We will have these cases also in the future.
>
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/Q
On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:12:11 you wrote:
> IMO it would be better to have Qt5 in the lib name as an indication that
> this is part of Qt 5.
I agree. That's what I wrote in response to Thiago above.
The '5' makes sense because it is 'part of Qt5'. It is part of the
distribution.
So far,
On 04/06/14 11:55, "Stephen Kelly" wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 09:41:53 you wrote:
>
>> I think we should keep the Qt5 in the library names. Consistency is a
>>good
>> thing. Making it completely free makes it harder to recognise what’s
>>part
>> of Qt and what isn’t.
>>
>> So IMO we sho
On 02/06/14 21:18, "Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:38:23PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
>> I originally proposed a QtCS session for this, but I think instead I
>> will try to talk to the QML maintainers outside of a session. If any
>> said maintainers think it
On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 09:41:53 you wrote:
> I think we should keep the Qt5 in the library names. Consistency is a good
> thing. Making it completely free makes it harder to recognise what’s part
> of Qt and what isn’t.
>
> So IMO we should try to see how we can fix this going forward.
I ag
On 06/04/2014 10:32 AM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 21:03:57 wim delvaux wrote:
Check out the project in DynamicQObject
Hi,
Where is it? Do you have any URL?
Keep in mind that all the internals of QMetaObject are internal and subject to
change. (But we will keep compatibi
On 04/06/14 11:00, "Stephen Kelly" wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:08:12 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The library filenames for Enginio do not have a version in their
>>basename
>> > at all, as was discussed and actioned for all modules before Qt 5.0.
>>Is
>> > that a mistake, or i
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:08:12 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> >
> > The library filenames for Enginio do not have a version in their basename
> > at all, as was discussed and actioned for all modules before Qt 5.0. Is
> > that a mistake, or is this stuff a free-for-all for all new modules?
>
>
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 21:03:57 wim delvaux wrote:
> Check out the project in DynamicQObject
Hi,
Where is it? Do you have any URL?
Keep in mind that all the internals of QMetaObject are internal and subject to
change. (But we will keep compatibility with older moc generated code.)
In genera
Hi all
I am very interested to discuss and contribute to this project.
Our motivation:
Our qt application is split to modules written in qt and every module
runs in its own process. This gives us robustness but our calls become
IPC. All modules are updated at once, so there is no need for stable
14 matches
Mail list logo
