Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > would it be problem for you to settle that we use qt 4.4 designer for
> > trunk-only development from now on?
>
> No, for me it's not a problem (except that I might have to install a third
> version of Qt then: 4.2 for branch development, 4.4 for trunk development
>
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
I know that my Linux knowledge is very limited. So what I understood now
is that the Linux distribution you are using determines the available
Qt, right? If so, isn't there a simple update possibility for Qt in the
package handling program of the used distribution?
It is eas
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> I know that my Linux knowledge is very limited. So what I understood now is
> that the Linux distribution you are using determines the available Qt,
> right? If so, isn't there a simple update possibility for Qt in the package
> handling program of the used distribution?
You can
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> Why that? You don't need to update or even install Qt to run LyX.
Qt is
>> advertised as being platform independent. The Qt requirement is
thus only
>> of interest for people who what to compile LyX by themselves.
>
> This is not true on Linux. Since many Linux applications
>> Why that? You don't need to update or even install Qt to run LyX. Qt is
>> advertised as being platform independent. The Qt requirement is thus only
>> of interest for people who what to compile LyX by themselves.
>
> This is not true on Linux. Since many Linux applications (and the whole of
>
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> would it be problem for you to settle that we use qt 4.4 designer for
> trunk-only development from now on?
No, for me it's not a problem (except that I might have to install a third
version of Qt then: 4.2 for branch development, 4.4 for trunk development
and 4.5 for daily
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> The latter is not so easy, since designer 4.2 cannot open designer 4.5 files
> (well, maybe it can if the header Enrico mentions is removed).
aha
> In the case of the nomenclature dialog, I had to restore the old version and
> redo Uwe's fix again in 4.2 designer.
>
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Why that? You don't need to update or even install Qt to run LyX. Qt is
> advertised as being platform independent. The Qt requirement is thus only
> of interest for people who what to compile LyX by themselves.
This is not true on Linux. Since many Linux applications (and the
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> However, I do not understand the reasoning. You write that you want to
>> force people to use a new Qt in order to have less bugs. So people who
>> run an older linux distribution will have to upgrade their linux to
>> upgrade lyx for no other reason than that it will be better
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> the designer issue
> can be solved either by allowing any designer version in trunk-only or
> staying in the current way - somebody using 4.2 will need to re-save
> particular ui file from time to time. i dont think its much of problem.
The latter is not so easy, since design
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
Bugs as more often in recent versions than in older ones IMO. I prefer
a 4.2.3 to any 4.x.0. Do you have examples of bug that people exerience
with qt 4.2.x but not later ones?
These are some of the known Qt bugs LyX suffered from and that are fixed in
recent Qt:
Uwe Stöhr writes:
> @JMarc: I proposed Qt 4.4.2 because Qt 4.4.0 was reported unstable and
> 4.4.2 was reported nearly bug free on Mac OS and Windows. 4.4.3 is the
> same as 4.4.2 except of the new Nokia icons.
OK. I wanted to be sure it was not a leftover of the previous 4.2.2
requirement.
JMa
Uwe Stöhr writes:
> Concerning the technical gain of a recent Qt version are in my opinion
> not only the few ifdef's we would save but the hundreds of fixed bugs
> in Qt. I mean we didn't noticed all Qt bug because most of us are
> already using a recent Qt when compiling LyX. The idea is therefo
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Concerning the technical gain of a recent Qt version are in my opinion not
> only the few ifdef's we would save but the hundreds of fixed bugs in Qt. I
we can make in our install statement that we recommend to use qt 4.5 which is
widely tested. but thats completely different t
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > If no we have no good technical reasons, providing support for as much Qt
> > versions as possible is a worthy goal in itself, IMHO.
>
> +1
i agree too. those few ifdefs we have are not hurting and the designer issue
can be solved either by allowing any designer vers
> Considering our past policy for 1.6, we can now bump the requirements to Qt4.4 for trunk as 4.4
is > more than a year old and is one version below the current stable series (4.5).
This is sensible in my opinion.
Concerning the technical gain of a recent Qt version are in my opinion not only t
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Windows and Mac binaries should use 4.5.2 in any case.
(FYI, Qt-4.5 -- including 4.5.2 -- is not yet ready on Mac: the main
problem is that various windows and dialogs sometimes go completely
blank or have their buttons turn invisible. Fo
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > Just for clarification: I am perfectly fine for not staying with 4.2. It
> > is just that we should base these decisions on technical facts. I
> > thought that with modern designer versions, kee
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Just for clarification: I am perfectly fine for not staying with 4.2. It
> is just that we should base these decisions on technical facts. I
> thought that with modern designer versions, keeping things working with
> 4.2 was much easier.
>
> And I'd like to know what
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
Just for clarification: I am perfectly fine with staying with 4.2. I
also see no big features nor fixes in 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 that would be
needed for Lyx, but I could be wrong of course. Windows and Mac
binaries should use 4.5.2 in any cas
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It is interesting to note that, since the version requirements have been
set to 4.2.2 in 1.6.0, nobody felt the urge to remove the 6 #ifdef that
are now useless. So much for the argument that a specifyin
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
> Just for clarification: I am perfectly fine with staying with 4.2. I
> also see no big features nor fixes in 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 that would be
> needed for Lyx, but I could be wrong of course. Windows and Mac
> binaries should use 4.5.2 in any case.
Just for clarification
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> It is interesting to note that, since the version requirements have been
>> set to 4.2.2 in 1.6.0, nobody felt the urge to remove the 6 #ifdef that
>> are now useless. So much for the argument that a specifying a version
>> allows to simp
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It is interesting to note that, since the version requirements have been
set to 4.2.2 in 1.6.0, nobody felt the urge to remove the 6 #ifdef that
are now useless. So much for the argument that a specifying a version
allows to simplify the code :)
I just checked and
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Uwe Stöhr writes:
And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2? I mean hundreds of bugs have
been fixed the last 3 years in Qt and many new features were added.
The answer is that you are usi
Uwe Stöhr writes:
>> And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
>
> I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2? I mean hundreds of bugs have
> been fixed the last 3 years in Qt and many new features were added.
The answer is that you are using windows and not Linux. Please don't
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
qt 4.4 designer promised to be compilable with older versions, which
should solve your problem.
I used Qt 4.5's designer for this change and the result is obviously
uncompilable with Qt 4.2. In the past I used Qt 4.4's designer and Jürgen
had the s
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > qt 4.4 designer promised to be compilable with older versions, which
> > should solve your problem.
>
> I used Qt 4.5's designer for this change and the result is obviously
> uncompilable with Qt 4.2. In the past I used Qt 4.4's designer and Jürgen
> had the same problem.
th
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > > And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
> >
> > I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2?
>
> Personally, I use Qt 4.5.2. But I keep on developing with Qt 4.2,
> since we promise to be
> qt 4.4 designer promised to be compilable with older versions, which
> should solve your problem.
I used Qt 4.5's designer for this change and the result is obviously uncompilable with Qt 4.2. In
the past I used Qt 4.4's designer and Jürgen had the same problem.
regards Uwe
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
>
> I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2? I mean hundreds of bugs have been
> fixed the last 3 years in Qt and many new features were added. I provide a
> Windows build and therefore use the most stable version o
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
>
> I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2?
Personally, I use Qt 4.5.2. But I keep on developing with Qt 4.2, since we
promise to be compilable with Qt 4.2.2 and newer, both branch and trunk. Look
at INSTALL.
> I
> And you are sure these UI files will compile against Qt 4.2?
I hope so. But why are you using Qt 4.2? I mean hundreds of bugs have been fixed the last 3 years in
Qt and many new features were added. I provide a Windows build and therefore use the most stable
version of Qt and a full featured
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Generally yes, but you broke the dialog. I cannot open the UI file with
> > Qt
>
> > 4.2.3's designer.
>
> You need to update to a more recent Qt designer because the UI format of Qt
> 4.2 is outdated. (Qt 4.2 was released 3 years ago.)
> You can use the Qt designer of Qt 4.4.
> Generally yes, but you broke the dialog. I cannot open the UI file with Qt
> 4.2.3's designer.
You need to update to a more recent Qt designer because the UI format of Qt 4.2 is outdated. (Qt 4.2
was released 3 years ago.)
You can use the Qt designer of Qt 4.4.x or 4.5.x or the Qt creator sin
uwestoehr wrote:
> Log:
> NomenclUi.ui: fix #3936 also for the description field of the nomenclature
> dialog as reported in #6054
>
> OK for branch too?
Generally yes, but you broke the dialog. I cannot open the UI file with Qt
4.2.3's designer.
I'll fix it and do the change in branch.
Jürgen
36 matches
Mail list logo
