On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Just to be clear: Qt4 LXQt *is* abandonware. 0.8 officially still
> support Qt4 but it will be dropped very soon after the release. If it
> has bugs, barring a 0.8.1 release there will not be any fixes for
> specifically qt4...
> J. Leclanc
Make it easiest on the development teams, as they are the people who work
on the code constantly. How often do Packagers have to repackage? As an end
user who thinks in terms of QA, I would much rather have Dev's who are
happy, as long as packagers are not utterly miserable. Over the years I
have o
hi Shawn,
can you summarize your ideas about suse repositories, please? I'm really
interested in these packages but I find it confusing to have so many
repos without any clear hierarchy, like "this is mine repo", "this is
devel for regular users", "this is bse for factory"...
I think I can help a
Just to be clear: Qt4 LXQt *is* abandonware. 0.8 officially still
support Qt4 but it will be dropped very soon after the release. If it
has bugs, barring a 0.8.1 release there will not be any fixes for
specifically qt4...
J. Leclanche
2014-09-08 21:34 GMT+02:00 Luís Pereira :
> On Mon, Sep 8, 201
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Brendan Perrine wrote:
> The only reason I see to have both is if you want to triage bugs or test the
> quality of both the Qt4 and Qt5 versions.
For me, that's precisely the point. It's not about the user neither
packagers, it's about development.
> The work ar
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:14:03 +0200
Florian Hubold wrote:
> all the other libraries, binaries and other ressources like icons and such
> that
Also how would an end user want paralel installation. Are the Qt4 and Qt5
versions different enough that the increased memory useage of Qt4 and Qt5 makes
Am 08.09.2014 um 13:44 schrieb Jerome Leclanche:
> I don't think planning in advance for qt6 makes any sense. I'd rather
> just use /usr/share/lxqt as well; there's no logical reason why we
> should be co-installable between qt4 and qt5. If for some crazy reason
> a distro requires that, they can p
Hello!
Next few bugfixed releases happened:
lxmenu-data 0.1.3
lxrandr 0.2.0
Test those, please, and give your feedback if you happen to find any more
bugs. Thank you in advance.
I did not announced any at blog.lxde.org still, I need some rights to add
articles there, I believe.
Wit
I don't think planning in advance for qt6 makes any sense. I'd rather
just use /usr/share/lxqt as well; there's no logical reason why we
should be co-installable between qt4 and qt5. If for some crazy reason
a distro requires that, they can patch lxqt.
J. Leclanche
2014-09-08 13:38 GMT+02:00 Luís
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:08 AM, PCMan wrote:
> Should we unify this by installing all data files of every component
> to /usr/share/lxqt-qt5 when compiled with Qt5? Or just install
> everything to /usr/share/lxqt for both Qt4 and Qt5?
I'm in favor of installing it to different places.
No clashes
Hello,
We should have released LXQt 0.8 last weekend, but it's blocked by an
issue related to translations and data files.
Now some translations and data files are installed to /usr/share/lxqt,
while others are installed to /usr/share/lxqt-qt5.
This inconsistency breaks some translations.
The /usr/
11 matches
Mail list logo
