On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:01 , Georg Baum <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>> I can't comment on the cmake part, but the C++ changes look good. To our >>> Mac expperts: Is there any reason why they are not already in? >> I guess this is because since QT_WS_MACX was not defined anymore in QT5, >> the mac specific parts were not compiled anymore and hence did not trigger >> any problem. > > I researched a bit, and there are indeed subtle differences: Q_OS_MACX is > also provided on the oldest qt release supported by LyX (4.5.0). However, > with qt 4.x, Q_OS_MACX is not equivalent to Q_WS_MACX: If you build for X11 > you get Q_WS_X11 and Q_OS_MACX. > > BTW, the other macros we use (Q_WS_WIN and Q_WS_X11) have no direct Q_OS > equivalent either, but they need to be changed as well in qt5. I don't know > where to go from here. AFAIK Vincent did compile already for windows with > qt5. Why did that work without the changed macros? Also, the qt sources > themselves still use the Q_WS macros, although I could not find any place > where they are defined. Is that simply broken code? I can't believe. Should > we define our own and not use the QT ones? It seems that it would be better to have LyX macros handling the following cases: - QT + OS X => LYX_QT_OSX - QT5 + OS X => LYX_QT5_OSX - QT4 + OS X => LYX_QT4_OSX - QT4 + OS X + COCOA => LYX_QT_OSX_COCOA - QT4 + OS X + X11 => LYX_QT_OSX_X11 this would make the code more readable and easier to maintain IMHO. I can update my patch in this direction if needed. In that case, where should I put the macro definitions? Benjamin
