Re: [Development] The dark side of QtMultimedia

2014-11-23 Thread Timo Jyrinki
2014-11-17 18:49 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira : > By the way, I read somewhere that some distros are considering not shipping > Qt 4 as early as their next releases. I also think that's shortsighted. Keep > it in your repos all the way into 2017... Debian plans to not have Qt 4 after Debian 8.0 [1].

Re: [Development] Explicit linking vs dlopen/dlsym

2014-11-23 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Sunday 23 November 2014 19:55:53 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > The difference is with dlopen we can support more than one major version > with the same binary making it possible to upgrade udev for instance > without having to upgrade all of Qt at the same time. In this case it > doesn't matter

Re: [Development] Explicit linking vs dlopen/dlsym

2014-11-23 Thread Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On Sunday 23 November 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Sunday 23 November 2014 11:53:46 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > > QtWebKit and QtWebEngine does not support linking directly to libudev, > > but they will only try to dlopen libudev.so.1 or libudev.so.0 in that > > order, and being major versi

Re: [Development] Qt high-dpi support update

2014-11-23 Thread Ben Lau
On 21 November 2014 at 21:45, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > On 19/11/14 09:55, Morten Johan Sørvig wrote: > > Meeting summary: > > > > * Qt Quick will operate in device pixels and get one or more “device > > independent” units (pt, cm, mm, inches, …) > > After chatting with the involved parties, this

Re: [Development] Explicit linking vs dlopen/dlsym

2014-11-23 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Sunday 23 November 2014 11:53:46 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > QtWebKit and QtWebEngine does not support linking directly to libudev, but > they will only try to dlopen libudev.so.1 or libudev.so.0 in that order, and > being major version if a libudev.so.2 is made it can co-exists with > libude

Re: [Development] Explicit linking vs dlopen/dlsym

2014-11-23 Thread Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On Sunday 23 November 2014, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Sunday 23 November 2014 08:22:28 Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Sorry, but as distribution packagers, we really no NOT like dlopened > > > libraries, for several reasons: > Packagers can and should force the linking. This is about the distribution-

Re: [Development] Explicit linking vs dlopen/dlsym

2014-11-23 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Sunday 23 November 2014 08:22:28 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Sorry, but as distribution packagers, we really no NOT like dlopened > libraries, for several reasons: Packagers can and should force the linking. This is about the distribution- agnostic binaries we produce and are available from qt-projec