Am 05.12.2021 um 18:46 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck <rikih...@lyx.org>: > > On 12/4/21 06:26, Stephan Witt wrote: >> Am 01.12.2021 um 22:48 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck <rikih...@lyx.org>: >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> Things got a bit crazy again, but I now should have a bit of time. Where do >>> people think we stand with 2.4.0? I've seen a bit of activity in the >>> interim. Do we need to do one more alpha? Or should we proceed directly to >>> beta 1? >>> >>> What if anything needs to be done before we move to whatever the next stage >>> is? >> I have two things pending: >> >> 1. Changes to make LyX to compile with Qt 6.2 on Mac >> 2. Configure option parameter to define the minimum target OS version for Mac >> >> I’d like to push them to be ready for build of LyX package with Qt 6.2 for >> Intel and M1 CPUs on Mac. > > I'm ignorant of such things. I would think you could go ahead. The changes > look pretty minor. > > I did notice that your patch sometimes uses QT_VERSION < QT_VERSION_CHECK(6, > 0, 0) and sometimes uses QT_VERSION < 0x060000 type syntax. I would guess we > should be consistent, but I don't know which is best.
I’m using the variant I see in the code above or below. Personally I prefer the QT_VERSION_CHECK macro. But it’s not possible everywhere - moc don’t know it and it doesn’t work in headers read by moc. So to be consistent is possible with the 0x0yzblah syntax. Stephan -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
