Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[André Hartmann]

Hi Jani,

Am 13.06.2017 um 12:52 schrieb Jani Heikkinen:

Hi,

As a conclusion of subject:

only change related to pre-built binaries for 5.10 (from Qt 5.9) is dropping 32 
bit iOS.
And from 5.11 -> we will drop MSVC2013 as well.

There isn't conclusion about mingw yet but let's agree to switch from mingw 32 
bit to 64 bit one in 5.11


Right, there was no conclusion so far. Are there technical issues that 
you want to discontinue 32 bit packages? Most Windows applications are 
still 32 bit and they run fine in Windows 32 and 64 bit environments.


I still have a Development Notebook running 32 bit Windows 7 and I use 
the Qt MinGW package (as it contains Qt, Creator, Compiler and Debugger 
in one package).


If you drop MSVC2013, could you instead deliver both MinGW 32 and 64 bit?

Best regards,
André



There were also discussion about minimum GCC version but it isn't directly 
related to pre-built binaries and that's why it needs to be concluded in 
different thread

br
Jani
___
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

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Lars Knoll]

> On 16 Jun 2017, at 01:27, Sérgio Martins  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Jani Heikkinen  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As a conclusion of subject:
>> 
>> only change related to pre-built binaries for 5.10 (from Qt 5.9) is dropping 
>> 32 bit iOS.
>> And from 5.11 -> we will drop MSVC2013 as well.
> 
> Hi Jani,
> 
> 
> From what I read in this thread I don't see that conclusion re 2013,
> in fact there seems to be more people and arguments in favor of
> removing it.

We’re one month away from the feature freeze, and in July half of the 
developers are on vacation. So there’s relatively little benefit from dropping 
2013 now, as dev currently works with it. 

So I’m with Jani here, and think that dropping it from the dev branch in a 
month from now, when we branch 5.10 makes most sense.

Cheers,
Lars

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Sérgio Martins]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Jani Heikkinen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a conclusion of subject:
>
> only change related to pre-built binaries for 5.10 (from Qt 5.9) is dropping 
> 32 bit iOS.
> And from 5.11 -> we will drop MSVC2013 as well.

Hi Jani,


>From what I read in this thread I don't see that conclusion re 2013,
in fact there seems to be more people and arguments in favor of
removing it.

Regards,
Sergio Martins
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Jani Heikkinen]

Hi,

As a conclusion of subject:

only change related to pre-built binaries for 5.10 (from Qt 5.9) is dropping 32 
bit iOS.
And from 5.11 -> we will drop MSVC2013 as well.

There isn't conclusion about mingw yet but let's agree to switch from mingw 32 
bit to 64 bit one in 5.11 -> 

There were also discussion about minimum GCC version but it isn't directly 
related to pre-built binaries and that's why it needs to be concluded in 
different thread

br
Jani
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Jake Petroules]

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Lars Knoll  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jani,
> 
>> On 7 Jun 2017, at 08:57, Jani Heikkinen  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI 
>> configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries. I 
>> don't see big need to change anything from 5.9 but there is still couple of 
>> things on my mind:
>> 
>> - Should we now switch from MinGW32 bit -> MinGW 64bit ones? With 5.9 this 
>> was too early but would it be time to do it now? Offering both isn't an 
>> option. And 5,9 is LTS so 5.10 could be good release to change that...
> 
> We got a lot of questions about 32bit binaries still in the comments to the 
> release blog. But those were pretty much all about VS2017. I'd personally be 
> happy to move more towards 64 bit, but we should somehow find out how much 
> 32bit is still required by our users.
>> 
>> - Can we start using RHEL 7.4 for linux packaging? Tony is planning to add 
>> RHEL 7.4 in CI and so on it would be wise to replace 7.2 with 7.4 in the 
>> packaging as well
> 
> Sounds good to me, unless anybody knows about any reasons why we should stay 
> on 7.2.
>> 
>> Is there some other change proposals which we should discuss about? 
> 
> I think we should strongly consider dropping 32bit for iOS.

I thought we already agreed to do this. :) With Apple announcing that iOS 11 
will no longer support 32-bit applications, let alone CPUs, there's very little 
value in us supporting it. 80-90% of iOS devices will likely be on iOS 11 in 
the first week or month of its release, and of the percentage that aren't, only 
a minority will be the 32-bit iPhone 5.

We probably even support too many iOS versions as it is. Apple's official 
recommendation is that your deployment target should be "major version one 
below current, maximum minor version" - i.e. when iOS 11 is out, your 
deployment target should be 10.3.

> Cheers,
> Lars
> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io
The Qt Company - Silicon Valley
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Lars Knoll]

Hi Jani,

> On 7 Jun 2017, at 08:57, Jani Heikkinen  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI 
> configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries. I 
> don't see big need to change anything from 5.9 but there is still couple of 
> things on my mind:
> 
> - Should we now switch from MinGW32 bit -> MinGW 64bit ones? With 5.9 this 
> was too early but would it be time to do it now? Offering both isn't an 
> option. And 5,9 is LTS so 5.10 could be good release to change that...

We got a lot of questions about 32bit binaries still in the comments to the 
release blog. But those were pretty much all about VS2017. I'd personally be 
happy to move more towards 64 bit, but we should somehow find out how much 
32bit is still required by our users.
> 
> - Can we start using RHEL 7.4 for linux packaging? Tony is planning to add 
> RHEL 7.4 in CI and so on it would be wise to replace 7.2 with 7.4 in the 
> packaging as well

Sounds good to me, unless anybody knows about any reasons why we should stay on 
7.2.
> 
> Is there some other change proposals which we should discuss about? 

I think we should strongly consider dropping 32bit for iOS.

Cheers,
Lars

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

[Development] Qt 5.10 pre-built bunaries

[Jani Heikkinen]

Hi all,

There has been discussion ongoing about 5.10 supported platforms and CI 
configurations. What we haven't agreed yet is Qt 5.10 pre-built binaries. I 
don't see big need to change anything from 5.9 but there is still couple of 
things on my mind:

- Should we now switch from MinGW32 bit -> MinGW 64bit ones? With 5.9 this was 
too early but would it be time to do it now? Offering both isn't an option. And 
5,9 is LTS so 5.10 could be good release to change that...

- Can we start using RHEL 7.4 for linux packaging? Tony is planning to add RHEL 
7.4 in CI and so on it would be wise to replace 7.2 with 7.4 in the packaging 
as well

Is there some other change proposals which we should discuss about? 

br,
Jani


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development