On Saturday 05 March 2016, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> On Samstag, 5. März 2016 08:09:22 CEST, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> > QtWebEngine can _only_ be compiled using (free
> > as in beer) MSVC 2013. In particular, MinGW is explicitly _not_
> > supported.
>
> Out of pure curiosity: got details on t
On Wednesday 30 December 2015, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 December 2015 00:19:39 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > - Same applies to most of the bundled stuff. A lot of the FreeBSD
> > > patches
> > >
&
On Tuesday 29 December 2015, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 December 2015 01:34:46 Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> > There is a little chance QtWebEngine will be ported on OpenBSD: if
> > someone will come in and fix Chromium and QtWebEngine to bundle less,
> > at least. I won't volunteer: handlin
On Friday 25 December 2015, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Friday 25 December 2015 12:42:26 you wrote:
> > On Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2015 12:14:06 CET Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 22 December 2015 16:07:06 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
> > > Meyer
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > The idea
On Tuesday 22 December 2015, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> On Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2015 19:05:23 CEST, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > So, using Kross would mean implementing the kjs backend for it that we
> > had in 4.x times?
>
> Isn't the designated successor for QtScript QJSEngine (I even assumed there
> sh
On Wednesday 22 April 2015, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > On April 22, 2015, 12:40 a.m., Luigi Toscano wrote:
> > > I think this should go to Qt (I think it's quite difficult they will
> > > accept it, as Qt4 is in hard freeze mode), and they will probably ask
> > > to see if it applies to Qt5 as wel
On Monday 20 April 2015, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2015-04-20 19:28 GMT+03:00 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
:
> > Hi everyone! I'm one of Debian's Qt maintainers and I'm writing here due
> > to the problem that QtWebEngine poses for us distros (in this case, at
> > least Debian and Fedora).
> >
> > I
On Thursday 28 November 2013, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
>
In an ideal world we would convince the distros to enable Qt namespace on Qt5,
so that Qt4 and Qt5 symbols does not clash, and does not cause crashes when
loaded as plugins etc.
`Allan
I think that is because it is what WePGetInfo requires.
- Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On Sept. 1, 2012, 9:23 p.m., Martin Koller wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
On Friday 03 August 2012, David Faure wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this makes sense. You drag-n-drop a symlink called "link" to a
> file called "target" from fish://myhost to your local $HOME, and you end
> up with a broken symlink, given that "target" is nowhere to be found?
>
Would it be relevant to
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104743/#review13194
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On April 30
very different
for 8bit color images.
- Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On April 26, 2012, 6:54 p.m., Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboa
On Wednesday 31 August 2011, David Faure wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 16:14:34 Martin Koller wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 31. August 2011 14:03:57 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > > You should remember to also make the compressed type a subtype of the
> > > corr
On Tuesday 30 August 2011, Martin Koller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my application I use KImageIO::mimeTypes to determine which formats I
> can load (e.g. the output of it is used in my .desktop file to fill in the
> MimeType definition).
>
> However I see that obviously Qt can already (to some degree)
On Sunday 08 May 2011, Dawit A wrote:
> In hopes of making Konqueror's default settings for the aforementioned
> HTTP headers inline with other browsers, I want to change the default
> settings for these three header as outlined below.
>
> ** Please note that this only affects the default! Each an
On Friday 04 February 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em sexta-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2011, às 16:52:54, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>
> escreveu:
> > Or to put another way; PUT takes a KUrl to send to and gets the data it
> > sends from a slot. POST is essentially just a PUT w
On Friday 04 February 2011, David Faure wrote:
> I like QIODevice actually, for reading stuff on demand.
> I use it everywhere in KArchive (KZip, KTar...) and KFilterDev.
> QIODevice is a "pull" solution - you can ask for "1MB of data now".
> Well, at least with buffers and files, not necessarily w
On Friday 04 February 2011, Dawit A wrote:
> Ahh... I think you misunderstood the purpose of the patch or rather
> the title of this review. The new APIs simply overload the existing
> http post APIs such that the data you are going to post is sent
> through a QIODevice (QFile or QBuffer) rather th
Is QIODevice the best idea to use as source?
Since we are talking KIO, I believe we can espect the user of KIO::http_post
to be using KIO and not Qt IO. So would it instead be possible to make the
source a KIO job or KUrl?
Regards
`Allan
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>
On Sunday 23 January 2011, Eike Hein wrote:
> > @sysadmins: would it be possible to change the format for some repos or
> > is this not possible? I.e. leave the decision to the project
> > maintainers?
>
> Would you be OK with this hybrid format that we discussed a few
> days ago:
>
> [/*] :
>
On Sunday 23 January 2011, Milian Wolff wrote:
> c) it's not possible to prioritize commit mails for reviewing. I get tons
> every day and often only look at "urgent" mails, where urgent was so far
> mostly related to committer + short commit msg. This worked really well,
> now I have to look at al
On Friday 31 December 2010, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 December 2010, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 December 2010, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:18:10PM -0200, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > > > Does that mean maki
On Wednesday 29 December 2010, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 December 2010, Rodrigo Belém wrote:
> > > Basically, quick, easy, and secure file sharing on Linux is broken. An
> > > alternative is needed, but I'm against removing NFS features.
> >
&g
On Wednesday 29 December 2010, Rodrigo Belém wrote:
> > Basically, quick, easy, and secure file sharing on Linux is broken. An
> > alternative is needed, but I'm against removing NFS features.
>
> I'm in favor of remove nfs for now, add webdav support and add a
> secure nfs filesharing.
That is v
On Wednesday 29 December 2010, Markus Slopianka wrote:
> Just for the record: I'm totally in favor of removing NFS support.
> In its current form it's a security risk. root rights? No way!
That is your choice
> IIRC NFS is also no encrypted, making it easy to intercept file
> transmissions.
>
N
On Tuesday 28 December 2010, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:18:10PM -0200, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > Does that mean making KDE completely oblivious to NFS at all?
>
> No, NFS is almost always system mounted. I've never come across
> anyone actually using it for user m
26 matches
Mail list logo
