Am streda 08 Jún 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:19:07PM +0200, Kornel wrote:
> > Am streda 08 Jún 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:24:37PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > > > On 7-6-2011 15:24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:19:07PM +0200, Kornel wrote:
> Am streda 08 Jún 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:24:37PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > > On 7-6-2011 15:24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestier
Am streda 08 Jún 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:24:37PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > On 7-6-2011 15:24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > >> The only problem that I foresee is when one of t
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:24:37PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> On 7-6-2011 15:24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>
> >> The only problem that I foresee is when one of the minor numbers
> >> in the Qt version is greater t
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:43:47PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > How portable is this in your opinion?
>
> It assumes a bourne compatible shell, but that assumption is made
> in so many places that I think it's very s
On 7-6-2011 15:24, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>
>> The only problem that I foresee is when one of the minor numbers
>> in the Qt version is greater than 9. For example, it will fail
>> for Qt 4.10.0 (in its present form), but it ca
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> The only problem that I foresee is when one of the minor numbers
> in the Qt version is greater than 9. For example, it will fail
> for Qt 4.10.0 (in its present form), but it can be complicated
> a bit to also account for that
Le 07/06/2011 15:06, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
It assumes a bourne compatible shell, but that assumption is made
in so many places that I think it's very safe.
Yes. The important think is to avoid bash-isms.
The only problem that I foresee is when one of the minor numbers
in the Qt version
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:43:47PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> How portable is this in your opinion?
It assumes a bourne compatible shell, but that assumption is made
in so many places that I think it's very safe.
The only problem that I foresee is when one of the minor numbers
in the Q
Le 07/06/2011 14:41, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
I think this is not going to work. From what I see looking at qt4.m4,
QT4_VERSION contains the string version, i.e., 4.7.3 and not 0x040703.
So, either we extract the definition of QT_VERSION (rather than
QT_VERSION_STR) from qglobal.h or manipulat
Le 07/06/2011 13:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:52:02AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 07/06/2011 09:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
The moc doesn't have a definition of QT_VERSION, so the check
"#if QT_VERSION>= 0x040600" fails and you always get the "#else"
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:52:02AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 07/06/2011 09:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > >The moc doesn't have a definition of QT_VERSION, so the check
> > >"#if QT_VERSION>= 0x040600" fails a
Am utorok 07 Jún 2011 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
> Le 07/06/2011 09:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > The moc doesn't have a definition of QT_VERSION, so the check
> > "#if QT_VERSION>= 0x040600" fails and you always get the "#else"
> > clause.
>
> Here is my next try. Something similar will
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:52:02AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 07/06/2011 09:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >The moc doesn't have a definition of QT_VERSION, so the check
> >"#if QT_VERSION>= 0x040600" fails and you always get the "#else"
> >clause.
>
> Here is my next try. Somethin
Le 07/06/2011 09:01, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
The moc doesn't have a definition of QT_VERSION, so the check
"#if QT_VERSION>= 0x040600" fails and you always get the "#else"
clause.
Here is my next try. Something similar will have to be done for cmake
and scons.
JMarc
Index: src/frontend
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:20:41PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> On 6-6-2011 17:53, lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
> > Author: lasgouttes
> > Date: Mon Jun 6 17:53:43 2011
> > New Revision: 38969
> > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38969
> >
> > Log:
> > Revert r38963. Compilation is n
Le 06/06/11 20:20, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Moc doesn't work if the class is within #if's (a bit strange, but this
seems to be the case). This means you can't put the whole class inside
the #if because compilation with the newest Qt does not work. That's
also the reason I moved the Q_SIGN
On 6-6-2011 17:53, lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: lasgouttes
> Date: Mon Jun 6 17:53:43 2011
> New Revision: 38969
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38969
>
> Log:
> Revert r38963. Compilation is now broken with qt 4.5, but I do not know Qt
> moc business and do not have time to inve
18 matches
Mail list logo
