Morning,
suggestion to consider Qt 5.12 in /opt comes from the following:
* newer web engine
* we can use and contribute to the code written for Plasma with its Kirigami
It will not bring native new applications, we don't have Silica for it.
However, I personally think it makes more sense to use
Hi all,
if there are some parts of the newer Qt you need in your app, you can
always compile it yourself, link your app against the newer version and
ship these libraries with your app.
Cheers
Dmitriy
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:44 PM rinigus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sounds like there are porting and lic
Hi,
Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2019, 20:11:18 CET schrieb Dylan Van Assche via Devel:
> Hi,
>
> I would really like this! Getting Qt 5.12 on SFOS would be great :) This way
> we can keep up with the LTS releases of Qt, this would speed up the
> development of SFOS apps.
I am against it.
It would be t
Hi,
I would really like this! Getting Qt 5.12 on SFOS would be great :) This way we
can keep up with the LTS releases of Qt, this would speed up the development of
SFOS apps.
Kind regards,
Dylan Van Assche
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Original Message
On 9 Feb 2019 18:44, rin
Hi,
sounds like there are porting and licensing issues on the way of getting qt
5.9 for SFOS (see logs from the last #mer-meeting). Its all understandable,
but it would be great to get a way forward. Not sure whether it has been
considered by others and I wonder whether we can make a separate Qt 5
