On Thursday 18 September 2014 21:46:27 Jeremy wrote:
> I don’t see an issue with removing it from Qt 5. Is there a general plan for
> modules that exit from production-ready status?
Modules that exit from production-ready status need to go through the
deprecation ladder: first Done, then Deprecat
On 5September2014, at 02:05, 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
> Reported already 24/Jan/14 QTBUG-36429
FYI more recent and prioritized bug report is QTBUG-38511
I think it deserves a lot of attention now since 10.9.5 is live.
--Adam
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.o
Thanks a lot for pointing me to the bug report and original thread. Somehow it
has hit me today once I've upgraded to 10.9.5 that brings stricter signing
policy.
--Adam
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org
Reported already 24/Jan/14 QTBUG-36429
even mentioned in thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.devel/17821
Raul
On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:31, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
> Briefly - current Qt5 frameworks bundles structure is invalid & cannot be
> code signed anymore in 10.9.5 & 10.10. Als
Briefly - current Qt5 frameworks bundles structure is invalid & cannot be code
signed anymore in 10.9.5 & 10.10. Also
Please have a look at Apple's recent TN2206:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/technotes/tn2206/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40007919-CH1-TNTAG205
And refe
On Thursday 18 September 2014 04:31:20 BogDan wrote:
> Your sentence is correct as long as the user *ships* qt libs alongside his
> apps! If the application uses system libraries, then IMHO, is not his
> responsibility to provide the sources for Qt.
Right. And when using Ministro, it's the Ministr
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:53 AM, haithem rahmani
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the Qt-5.4.0-alpha release I noticed that QtWebEngine, is building all
> reuqired libs tools
> from sources even if those tools and libs are provided by the host.
>
> Won't this cause any issue with Qt being built with 'system
- Original Message -
From: Thiago Macieira
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 p
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Tomasz Olszak
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:35 AM
> To: haithem rahmani
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subje
On 18 September 2014 07:32, Simon Sasburg wrote:
> > Well, most sites out there I know start a download automatically if you
> > click on a download button (which you probably did from qt.io/download
> to
> > get to the page you mentioned).
> Well the problem is from qt.io/download there is no ch
> Well, most sites out there I know start a download automatically if you
> click on a download button (which you probably did from qt.io/download to
> get to the page you mentioned).
Well the problem is from qt.io/download there is no choice/indication
of what is going to be downloaded.
And as far
+2
From: development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=digia@qt-project.org
[mailto:development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=digia@qt-project.org] On
Behalf Of Reinio Topi
Sent: 16. september 2014 09:31
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: [Development] Nominating Venugopal Shivashankar and Nico V
2014-09-17 8:53 GMT+02:00 haithem rahmani :
> Hi,
>
> In the Qt-5.4.0-alpha release I noticed that QtWebEngine, is building all
> reuqired libs tools
> from sources even if those tools and libs are provided by the host.
>
IIRC it is not Qt part which builds dependencies but blink part
(that's is d
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Kuba Ober wrote:
>
> My only worry is that it seems like an idle exercise. Why spend all this
> time doing something that, ultimately, serves no real purpose? Qt’s image
> ultimately depends on the quality of the code and the documentation that
> comes with it, no
On 18 September 2014 09:07, Knoll Lars wrote:
> The automatic download is a bit overdone currently, as it also downloads
> on back/forward navigations and doesn’t remember that the package has
> already been downloaded once. So we should consider whether that’s the
> best approach or whether an a
On 18/09/14 08:06, "Kojo Tero" wrote:
>> -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
17 matches
Mail list logo
