On Wednesday 19 January 2011 07:38:06 Ville M. Vainio wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Sivan Greenberg <si...@omniqueue.com> wrote: > > I also recall a couple of emails about it from the beginning of the > > project. What has Ubuntu made already that could be served to a > > transitioning or testing phase ? > > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/568 > > Quote: > > "To address this, Canonical is driving the development of dconf > bindings for Qt, so that it is possible to write a Qt app that uses > the same settings framework as everything else in Ubuntu. We’ve > contracted with Ryan Lortie, who obviously knows dconf very well, and > he’ll work with some folks at Canonical who have been using Qt for > custom development work for customers. We’re confident the result will > be natural for Qt developers, and a complete expression of dconf’s > semantics and style."
Replying with another quote, just to bring another point of view into the debate. http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2011/01/qt-acceptance-growing-next- colaboration.html "Mark suggests that Qt developers should start using Canonical's Qt add-on libraries for things like dconf so that Qt apps integrate properly with Ubuntu. This is not that much different from saying that Qt apps should just use Gtk+ for rendering so they fit in better, just doing so at a different layer in the stack." I agree with Aaron that just embracing what Ubuntu does and create Ubuntu- specific versions of Qt applications is a bad idea. If dconf is the way to go, it needs to be properly integrated into Qt instead of coming as Ubuntu- specific bindings. Then MeeGo will get dconf for free for Qt applications. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev