Morning,
EXAMPLE_FILES contains a list of additional example files for a project.
The files referenced in the variable will be installed by qmake to the
appropriate examples destination.
See: mkspecs/features/qt_example_installs.prf
On 08/02/2014 06:19 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday 01
Hi,
sorry my comment has no relation to KArchive in special, I appreciate our
efforts.
I was the attitude which let me maybe overreact. We could as well switch to
LGPL and save a lot of money.
Never mind,
Gunnar
> Am 04.08.2014 um 01:02 schrieb Aleix Pol :
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:08 AM,
On 02/08/14 18:21, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Friday 01 August 2014 23:16:40 Marc Mutz wrote:
>> That leaves the question how to deal with the documentation for these
>> implicit members.
>
>Why do we have to document them in the first place? I hate having to
>write
>documentation for a destr
On 2014-08-03, at 08:17 PM, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
>> In Xcode 6, when you create a new framework target, the first application
>> target in the project is automatically selected for "embed in bundle" which
>> you'd have to EXPLICITLY change for it to NOT be copied. Xcode 6 simply adds
>> new
> In Xcode 6, when you create a new framework target, the first application
> target in the project is automatically selected for "embed in bundle" which
> you'd have to EXPLICITLY change for it to NOT be copied. Xcode 6 simply adds
> new and convenient UI for a practice that's been standard for
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Gunnar Roth wrote:
>
> Am 02.08.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Thiago Macieira >:
>
>
> And to be honest, while convenient, this is not a must-have feature. With
> my
> OSS hat on, I would say (L)GPL-averse customers could be served right by
> their
> aversion by having o
On 2014-08-03, at 06:11 AM, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
>> Your proposal to simply add @rpath and do nothing else has no benefits. What
>> problem does it solve, other than deleting a bit of code from macdeployqt
>> that currently works and will continue to work without maintenance? None.
>
> My or
On Sunday 03 August 2014 00:08:28 Gunnar Roth wrote:
> > Am 02.08.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Thiago Macieira
> > :
> >
> >
> > And to be honest, while convenient, this is not a must-have feature. With
> > my OSS hat on, I would say (L)GPL-averse customers could be served right
> > by their aversion by
> Your proposal to simply add @rpath and do nothing else has no benefits. What
> problem does it solve, other than deleting a bit of code from macdeployqt
> that currently works and will continue to work without maintenance? None.
My original intention was to stop rewriting headers of Qt modules
qdoc decides which members must be documented by parsing the .h file looking
for the members that are not private. Any such member that does not later have
a qdoc comment is a "documentation missing" error. It has simply always been
that way, but we can change it if that makes sense. It does rec
10 matches
Mail list logo
