On 11.09.2012 16:55, kai.koe...@nokia.com wrote: > > There's nothing wrong with cross-compilation. But what we need first and > foremost is a reliable, native MinGW environment for developing Qt > applications, since the vast majority of Qt developers that develop for > Windows also develop _on_ Windows. Now one can argue that Qt itself could > still be compiled using a cross-compiler. But if we're not able to compile Qt > ourselves with the native toolchain, how can we be sure other complex apps > will work? > > I haven't found a stock native MinGW 64 bit package yet that can compile Qt 5 > + Qt Creator. Peter seems willing to experiment with a custom package, but I > personally do not see this for 5.0 .
This is more a long term goal because atm no common way of cross compiling a custom mingw version is available (only scripts "here and there"). > > I think for 5.0 , we should therefore only put MinGW 32 bit gcc 4.7 as Tier 2 > or (preferably) Tier 1 platform. Support for MinGW 64 bit would be on a best > effort basis (Tier 3). > > Now for 5.1 (that is, earliest May 2013) we should definitely reevaluate > MinGW 64 bit as Tier 1 or Tier 2. > > What do you all think? I certainly don't want to discourage any effort in > getting MinGW-64 bit and Qt 5 to work, but rather want to be realistic in > what we should aim for with 5.0. Depends on the release date of Qt5, if it happens in 3 months I think it is possible. But Qt5 should not be delayed only because of MinGW, most Windows developers don't care about mingw. > > Kai > > PS: Added development@qt-project.org again to the thread. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
