[Development] Reviews needed before android integration in two weeks

[Thiago Macieira]

On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 00.40.45, BogDan wrote:
> When, where, who ?
> 
> I changed that macro because Google[1] and GCC[2] consider that the name of
> the O.S. is  ANDROID not LINUX-ANDROID and they define a preprocessor macro
> as  __ANDROID__ (not __LINUX_ANDROID__)! Because Q_OS_ is referring to the
> OS not to the kernel I found it naturally to call it simple Q_OS_ANDROID
> not Q_OS_LINUX_ANDROID (just like you folks did with Q_OS_MAC, Q_OS_CYGWIN,
> etc).
> 
> Anyway this is my last reaction on this matter, because I'm finding it a
> little bit childish and never ending, is like a discussion between Linus
> and Richard on Linux vs GNU/Linux matter. If not  even GCC and Google don't
> convince that ANDROID is the right name (and not LINUX_ANDROID), then for
> me will be impossible to do it

I understand your reasoning. And I can't fault it.

However, now this is no longer about "which one is the best name" but instead 
about changing what we already currently have. Qt 5.0.0 shipped with 
Q_OS_LINUX_ANDROID (though unsupported).

So your argument about which one is best, is fine. But you need also to argue 
about why we need to change about what has been shipped.

Note: a way out is to define *both*.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130206/200faf20/attachment.sig>