Re: [Qt-creator] Qt Creator Community
Kevin: No problem, I will send you the binary Mac file to your email address shortly, together with the specs file as well. You can work out the installation path inside the Qt Creator.app bundle by looking at the project file I sent in a previous email: not really complicated. The installation path ends up as: Qt Creator.app/Contents/PlugIns/Kofee. Greetings, Victor On 7/27/10 5:34 PM, Kevin Tanguy wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:51:54 -1000, Victor Sardina victor.sard...@noaa.gov wrote: Kevin: Thank you for the hint above the usage of the plugin: it works as intended, but only on the header files, and if you place the cursor on a function or object declaration. Yes, I know it's a huge limitation. It actually works on local variables in source files but that's pretty much useless. As a rule I place the documentation of the code not in the header file, but inside the implementation file. I don't know if there exist some sort of convention about it based on some better supported rationale. I simply place comments in the implementation files, among other reasons, to keep the header files as clean and lean as possible, as anyone using a class can get an idea of the general layout of the class that way. This of course turns into a matter of personal preference. Lots of people do so and I understand the reason(s) but I don't for other reasons, so I indeed started with making it working with header files (and that's where the code of Nicolas from his cpphelper plugin was really helpful, hence the credit I gave him). I wanted to implement it for source files as well as you can see in the options page but the tick box really isn't used. I liked that idea as well: http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-creator/2010-February/006060.html You might call the code ugly, but it works, does what you intended it to do, and can get much better with some work. Nobody writes a stellar application as a first crack at it, unless they have done something similar in the past, which makes it a de facto non-first-crack anyway... Indeed, and with the beautiful documentation we'll get, there will be no more excuses ;) Didn't check for a while the progress on this side but I will. The doxygen plugin actually works as you explained: as long as you place the cursor on a function declaration et al. inside the header file. I obviously needed some rest and some mojitos to clear my mind...;-) I haven't tried the latest changes you made to the code base. Did you update the svn repo as yet? Didn't commit anything yet and didn't make any change to the code anyway. But will have to for the 2.1 branch as it doesn't compile against current git. I think that having a menu option to generate all the doxygen tags at once turns quite useful. Of course, for that you have to write the function to actually parse the whole header/source file first. The main problem I see would be to detect and leave unchanged or update existing documentation blocks, not a really simple task. I guess we can call that a (partially) solved issue. A Mac binary would be sweet as a direct download if you can send it to me :) Cheers, Kevin I haven't actually perused the sources as yet, but I started to get curious... :-) Greetings, Victor On 7/27/10 9:57 AM, Kevin Tanguy wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:37:43 -1000, Victor Sardina victor.sard...@noaa.gov wrote: Hi Kevin: My apologies for not replying a little bit sooner. You have a point: I did missed your email inside the specs file: they call that either tunel vision, or need of a break...:-( No problem², we should all rest on a beach drinking a mojito instead of working anyway. To get the plugin to compile and show in QtCreator I did the following: 1) Modified the project (.pro) file to reflect the location of both, the QtCreator sources and the compiled application itself, as you explain at the Trac website. As the name of the compiled application contains a space, you have to escape it inside the .pro file, namely Qt\\ Creator.app/Contents/... (see the modified project file enclosed below). 2) Modified the destination directory (DESTDIR) as well to define where to place the compiled plugin inside the application bundle 3) Replaced all instances of 1.3.84 by 2.0.80 inside the Doxygen.pluginspec file. Before doing this QtCreator fails to load the plugin and lists all dependencies on 1.3.84 versions as missing (obvious). As this turns rather convoluted to explain, I take the liberty of encloning the modified project file at the end of this email. Of course, somebody else's settings should reflect the location of their source files and the like, but this provides at least a template of the needed changes to at least reach the loaded plugin stage on a Mac. With the settings below the plugin files get correctly copied into the Qt Creator.app application bundle without a glitch. Thanks for that, will fix
Re: [Qt-creator] Error when trying to install commercial Qt Creator package
On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Hunger Tobias (Nokia-MS/Berlin) wrote: On 27.07.2010 14:36, ext Wiese Stefan (RtP2/TEF72) wrote: # source qt-license-4.6.3 # ./qt-creator-linux-x86-commercial-2.0.0.bin --installer-language de --license_licensee $Licensee --license_key $LicenseKeyExt --installdir /usr/local/ --mode unattended --debuglevel 4 Problem running post-install step. Installation may not complete correctly Die Datei ***unknown variable license_check_output*** konnte nicht entpackt werden, da sie nicht gefunden wurde # echo $? 1 Hello Stefan! Could you please file this as a bug report in http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/ Bugs do get lost on mailing lists but stay around forever in the bugtracker;-) Actually that's already there: http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTCREATORBUG-472 feel free to vote on it :) ++ Eike ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
Re: [Qt-creator] Error when trying to install commercial Qt Creator package
Am 28.07.2010 10:34, schrieb Eike Ziller: Hi Eike, # ./qt-creator-linux-x86-commercial-2.0.0.bin --installer-language de --license_licensee $Licensee --license_key $LicenseKeyExt --installdir /usr/local/ --mode unattended --debuglevel 4 Problem running post-install step. Installation may not complete correctly Die Datei ***unknown variable license_check_output*** konnte nicht entpackt werden, da sie nicht gefunden wurde feel free to vote on it :) This looks like a severe misunderstanding. I cannot believe that you refer a commercial customer who is paying for the product to vote upon this bug. After all this bug is purely related to the plain fact that the commercial license check is broken in the final release. Such bugs are not subject to voting but only to immediate remedy! The only acceptable answer from Nokia in such a case is: We are sorry that we broke the license check in our latest release and will fix it asap. Here is the immediate fix or at least a workaround. Yours, -- martin ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
Re: [Qt-creator] Error when trying to install commercial Qt Creator package
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 08:49:01PM +0200, ext Martin Konold wrote: The only acceptable answer from Nokia in such a case is: We are sorry that we broke the license check in our latest release and will fix it asap. Here is the immediate fix or at least a workaround. that is the answer one can expect from the official commercial support channel, not from the developer list. ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
[Qt-creator] Error with unattended install was: Error when trying to install commercial Qt Creator package
Am 28.07.2010 21:14, schrieb Oswald Buddenhagen: Hi Ossi, that is the answer one can expect from the official commercial support channel, not from the developer list. Look, this little bug needs to be fixed by the developers not by the commercial support guys. (The reporting customer is paying for about 10 commercial support contracts but going this route would just put extra burden on many more people without any real gain.) On the other hand I just learned from the bug report that this issue was already reported in December last year for the previous version 1.3.0. This makes me wonder why it was not fixed before the release of the new stable version? Yours, -- martin P.S.: In case you are unwilling to maintain this license check stuff you may consider dropping it altogether. But if you decide to keep the license check you are obliged to maintain it permanently. ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
Re: [Qt-creator] Error with unattended install was: Error when trying to install commercial Qt Creator package
There are protocols in place for these things for just such a reason. Your attitude here is really quite unprofessional and you're not likely to get a positive response from anyone that way, but the commercial support people are PAID to put up with people who are already pissed off. The people who monitor the mailing lists and the bugtrackers don't have authority to promote user-reported issues up to FIX THIS RIGHT NOW status -- the people who pay the bills at Nokia, however, do. This mailing list is primarily a matter of the open-source users -- and for what it's worth you're perfectly free to use open-source Creator with commercial Qt, so unless the non-Creator Qt package is broken too you have your workaround right there. And if the non-Creator Qt package is broken too, build it from source. It's not like it takes a long time to build with -no-webkit -nomake demos -nomake examples. /s/ Adam On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Martin Konold martin.kon...@erfrakon.de wrote: Am 28.07.2010 21:14, schrieb Oswald Buddenhagen: Hi Ossi, that is the answer one can expect from the official commercial support channel, not from the developer list. Look, this little bug needs to be fixed by the developers not by the commercial support guys. (The reporting customer is paying for about 10 commercial support contracts but going this route would just put extra burden on many more people without any real gain.) On the other hand I just learned from the bug report that this issue was already reported in December last year for the previous version 1.3.0. This makes me wonder why it was not fixed before the release of the new stable version? Yours, -- martin P.S.: In case you are unwilling to maintain this license check stuff you may consider dropping it altogether. But if you decide to keep the license check you are obliged to maintain it permanently. ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator ___ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
