On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 01:10:21 PM Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote: > On 02/05/2013 12:49 PM, Friedemann Kleint wrote: > > - Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the > > json style parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering > > about it, it seems to add a new Json parser. Could it be replaced by > > the Json classes of QtCore? > > We have a task about that. I think it either needs to be replaced by > Qt's json classes or put into 3rdparty. > > > - Compilation of the branch under Windows fails with the attached > > log. Something is probably wrong with #ifdefing/profiles? > > Great, thanks! > > Simon Hausmann wrote: > > Let's put it this way: linux-g++* is just as fuzzy as android-g++* in what > > it means. But we're not in the business of creating mathematical > > formulas, we're in the business of making life easier for software > > developers. If we can make it easier for people to port their app to > > Android, why don't we do it? > I don't have any very strong opinion either way, so whatever the > majority decides is fine by me, but since there's a disagreement: Could > you please elaborate on what makes linux-android-g++ (or > linux-g++-android for symmetry with maemo) simpler for the developer > compared to android-g++?
Simply put: Consistency. We do have linux-g++-maemo, linux-g++, linux-arm- gnueabi-g++ They're all flavours of Linux, following the os-compiler/variant pattern. There's no guarantee about what system libraries are in there. In that sense I feel Android is a variant of Linux. In the kernel sense Android is a super-set of the traditional Linux kernel mostly, isn't it? And it's moving closer to mainline step by step. Now after a closer inspection I do have to retract my argument with regards to the use of linux* in WebKit. Just disregard it ;) Consistency is the only argument that I can think of. It's not a strong one, so I won't go on and on about it. But please consider it :) > Technically I don't think Android is considered a Linux-distribution. > Wouldn't this be similar to renaming the OSX mkspec to "macx-g++-darwin"? Given the lack of alternate Darwin based operating systems that we support with Qt, I'm not sure it is that similar. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development