On 12/6/21 15:48, Stephan Witt wrote:
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.
Well, if we're already inconsistent, then I wouldn't worry about it.
Riki
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
