On Friday, May 18, 2012 08:41:13 marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote: > >Until the Phonon maintainers speak up and let us know what their plans > >for Qt > >5 are, we should consider our qtphonon.git module a disservice to > >everyone. If > >none of them speak up, I recommend removing the module from the build > >process. > > We did promise a minimal migration path from Qt 4 to Qt 5, and removing > the phonon module from qt5.git, with no easy way of compiling up the > current upstream phonon with Qt 5 goes against this promise.
It hasn't received any attention so far though, has it? Maybe phonon can be part of that promise in Qt 5.1. > That's why I > think we should keep it, until upstream has given a clear message of how > to proceed for Qt 5 users of phonon. (1. What their direction is, 2. > Migration path for Qt 4 users, 3. Build instructions for Qt 5 users on all > T1 platforms, etc) The only problematic part in your list is (1). In the absence of any other plans, I'm sure we'll just end up with a simple port to Qt 5 with no API change. > > Until then, at least Qt users can use phonon as is, just like they do in > Qt 4. I don't think having two phonons (the old and obsolete copy in Qt and the upstream) is a good idea. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <stephen.ke...@kdab.com> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development