[Development] [Interest] [Announce] Qt 5.1 released
Jake Thomas Petroules
jake.petroules at petroules.com
Fri Jul 5 04:52:54 CEST 2013
Personally I still think it would be far more logical to delegate the ANGLE vs OpenGL decision to runtime, by including plugins for both backends with all Windows distributions.
Having different packages seems to confuse a lot of Qt developers and complicates deployment matters, whereas a plugin based approach would solve these issues and also give end users the option to try a different graphics backend if the current one isn't working out for them. Many game engines do this, so why shouldn't Qt also be able to?
Chief Technology Officer
Petroules Corporation · www.petroules.com
Email: jake.petroules at petroules.com
On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Sze Howe Koh <szehowe.koh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good find, Mark. Forwarding the typo to the Web mailing list.
> The MinGW package is labelled "Qt 5.1.0 for Windows 32-bit (MinGW 4.8,
> 666 MB)", but the filename is
> qt-windows-opensource-5.1.0-mingw48_opengl-x86-offline.exe -- one of
> them is wrong.
> On a related note, would it be helpful for newcomers if ANGLE-based
> packages to explicitly labelled as such? After all, ANGLE is the odd
> one out -- everything else uses OpenGL.
> Qt 5.1.0 for Windows 32-bit (MinGW 4.8, ANGLE, xxx MB)
> Qt 5.1.0 for Windows 32-bit (MinGW 4.8, OpenGL, xxx MB)
> On 4 July 2013 22:34, Mark <markg85 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's probably a typo in the download page since the actual download
>>>> link does contain opengl in it .
>>>>  http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/5.1/5.1.0/qt-windows-opensource-5.1.0-mingw48_opengl-x86-offline.exe
>> Guess i found a typo then ;)
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development