Hi,
I am interested on working on Qt Quick 2 Scenegraph OpenVG rendering
backend. Few embedded devices have both OpenVG and OpenGL accelerators
available.
There are few interesting use cases for embedded devices:
* 2 display configurations, draw one with OpenVG and one with OpenGL
* OpenVG cons
Hello folks,
I'd like to let you know that Qt 5.3.2 libs were uploaded to *testing*
repository. In order to test the repo, please install and run "Ministro
Configuration Tool"[1] and switch to testing repository. All *existing apps*
should run *without any changes* (e.g. recompilation). As us
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+tero.kojo=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+tero.kojo=digia@qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> Sent: 18. syyskuuta 2014 0:39
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] www.qt.io/downlo
>> I know of crazy people that do just that willingly and compile on open
>> source linux phones...
>
> There was that story of Aaron Seigo compiling Plasma Mobile on an N900. Took
> about a week.
Which has the rare attribute of making scratchbox/Madde look
comparatively handsome
_
On Thursday 18 September 2014 10:13:47 Lorn Potter wrote:
> I know of crazy people that do just that willingly and compile on open
> source linux phones...
There was that story of Aaron Seigo compiling Plasma Mobile on an N900. Took
about a week.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel
On 18/09/14 05:09, Kuba Ober wrote:
> One of the reasons I loath to recommend to the management to go back to
> paying for Qt licenses is that we’d have been sponsoring what amounts to 2 or
> 3 major rebrandings and “revamps”, and it seems like throwing money down the
> drain. As a user, I wan
On 18/09/14 06:25, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 17/09/14 22:17, "Knoll Lars" wrote:
>
> Adding to myself: But I agree that downloading to a phone doesn't make too
> much sense, and we should probably detect that you look at the site from a
> mobile device. That part sounds like a plain old bug.
I kno
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 20:25:22 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Adding to myself: But I agree that downloading to a phone doesn't make too
> much sense, and we should probably detect that you look at the site from a
> mobile device. That part sounds like a plain old bug.
ugh... I hate those detections
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 20:19:27 Knoll Lars wrote:
> It's supposed to mean that you can modify Qt's source code without having
> to release the changes. I agree that the text is not clear enough and it
> should be somehow changed.
Right. The point isn't the "modify", it's the "release the s
On 17/09/14 22:17, "Knoll Lars" wrote:
>On 17/09/14 21:55, "Mark Gaiser" wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kuba Ober wrote:
>>> I’d like to personally scold whoever came up with the idea of starting
>>>the “default” download at www.qt.io/download-open-source. I, for one,
>>>never down
On 17/09/14 20:00, "André Somers" wrote:
>>Op 17 sep. 2014 om 18:05 heeft Thiago Macieira
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
>>> Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
>>> source code. So yes, the current q
On 17/09/14 21:55, "Mark Gaiser" wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> I’d like to personally scold whoever came up with the idea of starting
>>the “default” download at www.qt.io/download-open-source. I, for one,
>>never download the default installer since it was always
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kuba Ober wrote:
> I’d like to personally scold whoever came up with the idea of starting the
> “default” download at www.qt.io/download-open-source. I, for one, never
> download the default installer since it was always subtly broken in one
> fashion or another
I’d like to personally scold whoever came up with the idea of starting the
“default” download at www.qt.io/download-open-source. I, for one, never
download the default installer since it was always subtly broken in one fashion
or another, I always build from source. So now, the genius responsibl
On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
>> new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
>> summit. We
On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
> new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
> summit. We just launched the first stage of it on http://qt.io. For now
> qt
> Op 17 sep. 2014 om 18:05 heeft Thiago Macieira
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
>> Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
>> source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very misleading there.
>
>>
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
> Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
> source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very misleading there.
> They just don't have the right to publish closed source software based
> on those modifie
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 17:42:40 Samuel Gaist wrote:
> On 17 sept. 2014, at 17:20, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:52:36 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:00:06 Samuel Gaist wrote:
> >>> Good question, I'll have to check.
> >>> If that wh
On 17 sept. 2014, at 17:20, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:52:36 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:00:06 Samuel Gaist wrote:
>>> Good question, I'll have to check.
>>> If that where not the case, what should I write to give additional include
>>>
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:52:36 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:00:06 Samuel Gaist wrote:
> > Good question, I'll have to check.
> > If that where not the case, what should I write to give additional include
> > paths to moc ?
>
> Replace QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE with the
Milian Wolff schreef op 17-9-2014 13:46:
True. But do we agree that saying FOSS users don't have the "full rights to
modify source codes" is wrong, or at least misleading? I guess so, considering
you say "That's*also* nonsense" (emphasis mine).
Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every r
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 13:29:50 André Somers wrote:
> Milian Wolff schreef op 17-9-2014 12:38:
> > On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
> >> new unified web page that I’
Milian Wolff schreef op 17-9-2014 12:38:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
>> new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
>> summit. We just launche
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
> new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
> summit. We just launched the first stage of it on http://qt.io. For no
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 08:55:18 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 16:51:04 Mark Gaiser wrote:
> > I like the site! It looks clear and to the point imho.
> >
> > But i kinda fail to see the point in having - yet another - domain for Qt.
> > I mean, we've had:
> > - Troll
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Joerg Bornemann
wrote:
> On 17-Sep-14 11:13, Mark Gaiser wrote:
>
>> It was one of the modules i was looking forward to while Qt 5.0 was in
>> development. It seemed to be quite promising at the time.
>
>
> The alternative to removal is fixing. Are you stepping up
On 17-Sep-14 11:13, Mark Gaiser wrote:
> It was one of the modules i was looking forward to while Qt 5.0 was in
> development. It seemed to be quite promising at the time.
The alternative to removal is fixing. Are you stepping up? :)
BR,
Joerg
___
De
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Joerg Bornemann
wrote:
> The qtjsondb module is dead. It doesn't build since ages and has zero
> users. As civilized people we should bury our dead.
> Therefore I'd like to request the removal of qtjsondb from Qt's mother
> repository.
>
> Please raise any objecti
The qtjsondb module is dead. It doesn't build since ages and has zero
users. As civilized people we should bury our dead.
Therefore I'd like to request the removal of qtjsondb from Qt's mother
repository.
Please raise any objections here or on codereview:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/95
30 matches
Mail list logo
