Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 87 | Thanked: 112 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#11
Hi,

Same issue here, can't send my app to autobuilder due do broken dep it seem. Was building fine two days ago

Fabrice
 
Posts: 489 | Thanked: 404 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#12
Originally Posted by slender View Post
We know what to do because extras testing is extras testing and if you have problems with it, then make bug report and reflash. Simple as that.
How did I not think about it? Simple as hell.
 
tekojo's Avatar
Posts: 148 | Thanked: 484 times | Joined on Nov 2008
#13
Originally Posted by torpedo48 View Post
I've recently seen this service message in many applications's testing pages in Extras Testing:



What does that mean? I've already installed Qt 4.6 (as dependencies of many Extras-Testing apps), will I have problems with upcoming firmware upgrades? Should I remove them?

P.S.: sorry if I'm talking nonsense
Not nonsense at all.

The Qt4.6 libraries in extras-devel and now -testing are optified, i.e. they reside in the /opt directory. The final Qt4.6 libraries will not be in /opt, so this is more about preventing a lot of people having Qt4.6 libraries in two places.
Also the devel libraries are named 'wrong' to avoid the name collusion with the current Qt4.5 libraries.

On top of that the people working with Qt objected to the idea that their work in progress would be promoted to extras. They want to make it good and final and then get it out properly.

As for firmware upgrade, no problems there. Even if you have the devel libraries on device, the upgrade will go through fine. You just end up with two copies of the libraries, then it is time to remove the devel versions (once the packages that depend on them are changed to depend on the final Qt version).

I hope that was somewhat clear
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tekojo For This Useful Post:
Posts: 3,617 | Thanked: 2,412 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Cambridge, UK
#14
Originally Posted by tekojo View Post
Also the devel libraries are named 'wrong' to avoid the name collusion with the current Qt4.5 libraries.
As the Qt4.6 libraries are not API or ABI compatible with the Qt 4.5 libraries, then I would have thought that a different name was a necessity anyway, otherwise incompatible applications will still be installable.
 
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:14.