On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Attila Csipa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 May 2010 11:27:58 Luca Donaggio wrote: >> I'm not sure if this can answer your question, but I'm using PySide in my >> scratchbox env with latest SDK, which is the closest thing to PR1.2 atm I >> think. > > The page refers to the benchmarks actually being run on an N900 as the desktop > versions were too quick for measuring meaningful differences. All this is just > nitpicking really, I'm pretty sure PR1.1.1 vs PR1.2 would make no impact on > the general conclusion of the benchmark. I was curious about the versions > since so far I did not manage to do a proper PyQt4+Qt4.6 benchmark or play > with different optimizations due to that PR1.2 issue (BTW the latest currently > public available SDK is 10.2010.09-3 and IIRC contains an older version of Qt > than the one listed in the benchmark, so I would guess the actual firmware in > the test used *was* a newer firmware build than indicated - not that it > matters > that much, as I already said).
In order to have the latest version of Qt4.6 and PyQt (and to have the same Qt version into Desktop and N900) we used the packages available into scratchbox (after upgrading sbox to PR1.2). To install these packages into N900 it was just a matter of copying files from /var/cache/apt/archives (from sbox) to the device. > > Regards, > Attila > > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside > _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
