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

Reply via email to