On Wednesday 08 August 2012 18:14:00 Samuel Stirtzel wrote: > 2012/8/8 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com>: > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 17:04:16 Samuel Stirtzel wrote: > >> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 16:47:05 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> >> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 16:03 heeft Paul Eggleton > >> >> <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com>> > >> > > >> > het volgende geschreven: > >> > > >> > And? KDE is far more demanding upon Qt than most Qt-based applications. > >> > We > >> > had to make specific changes to our Qt recipes just to accommodate it. > >> > >> If you're talking about adding accessibility and session management to > >> configure -> these are set by default by Qt. > >> Don't know why they where unset in oe-core though. > > > > Not specifically, I was mainly referring to changes such as providing qt4- > > native; we did not need to do that before. > > While this is true, meta-kde is also the only layer using qt-mobility > (AFAIK). So you implicitly want to say that Koen is right because _there > are no other testcases_ for these recipes. > > Or do I get you wrong?
Koen's claim that we cannot sufficiently test Qt in OE-Core alone because we don't have KDE or any large application in it is false, or at the very least it is setting the bar unnecessarily and arbitrarily high for the sake of argument - that's what I'm saying. Whether we actually *do* sufficiently test Qt within OE-Core at the moment, especially on an automated basis, is a separate question and one we should have a serious look at. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
