3.hgKzyLeXCm@patux.local; Interests Qt
> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt 5.6LTS vs 5.7+
> >
> >
> > >Qt 5.6 is for those who cannot upgrade. If you can upgrade, upgrade.
> >
> > >>How (un)likely is it that one can remain locked into 5.6 because o
I ran it with what is currently in the Pi repos. The code is in the blog
post:
http://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/raspberry-qt-part-12-qml-blows-big-stinky-chunks/
Feel free to pull down the QML version and run whatever tests you want.
Scan back to this post:
ht
On 5 September 2016 at 02:13, Roland Hughes wrote:
> I just ran a simple QML project test on the Raspberry Pi:
> http://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/raspberry-qt-part-12-qml-blows-big-stinky-chunks/
> Yimminy is it a resource pig.
Would you be willing to re-run your t
Qt 5.6 is for those who cannot upgrade. If you can upgrade, upgrade.
How (un)likely is it that one can remain locked into 5.6 because of
dependent code that doesn't build against 5.7+? Qt's backward
compatibility principle should prevent that, no?
It is extremely likely for development to rem
> -Original Message-
> From: Interest [mailto:interest-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io@qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
> Sent: sunnuntaina 4. syyskuuta 2016 21.14
> To: 2202873.hgKzyLeXCm@patux.local; Interests Qt project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Inter
Qt 5.6 is for those who cannot upgrade. If you can upgrade, upgrade.
How (un)likely is it that one can remain locked into 5.6 because of dependent
code that doesn't build against 5.7+? Qt's backward compatibility principle
should prevent that, no?
It is extremely likely for development to
Em domingo, 4 de setembro de 2016, às 13:01:00 CEST, René J. V. Bertin
escreveu:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Qt 5.6 is for those who cannot upgrade. If you can upgrade, upgrade.
>
> How (un)likely is it that one can remain locked into 5.6 because of
> dependent code that doesn't build against 5.
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Qt 5.6 is for those who cannot upgrade. If you can upgrade, upgrade.
How (un)likely is it that one can remain locked into 5.6 because of dependent
code that doesn't build against 5.7+? Qt's backward compatibility principle
should prevent that, no?
R.
_
Em domingo, 4 de setembro de 2016, às 09:51:19 CEST, René J. V. Bertin
escreveu:
> It's been suggested that the LTS version might be provided as a "calm"
> option while 5.7+ see significant Wayland development. In itself that
> sounds like a plausible idea, but maybe not so much for Wayland suppor
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em sábado, 3 de setembro de 2016, às 19:00:03 CEST, René J.V. Bertin escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A bit of an existential question: to what extent should distributions and
>> distribution systems (which can target multiple OS/versions) be prepared to
>> provide 5.6 and 5.7+ alo
Em sábado, 3 de setembro de 2016, às 19:00:03 CEST, René J.V. Bertin escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> A bit of an existential question: to what extent should distributions and
> distribution systems (which can target multiple OS/versions) be prepared to
> provide 5.6 and 5.7+ alongside (as drop-in alternatives
Hi,
A bit of an existential question: to what extent should distributions and
distribution systems (which can target multiple OS/versions) be prepared to
provide 5.6 and 5.7+ alongside (as drop-in alternatives or otherwise)?
Thanks,
René
___
Interest
12 matches
Mail list logo
