[Development] Development Digest, Vol 41, Issue 96

Wittry Anthony tony.wittry at theqtcompany.com
Sat Feb 21 20:07:13 CET 2015 


Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message
From: development-request at qt-project.org
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 10:38 AM‎
To: development at qt-project.org‎
Reply To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Development Digest, Vol 41, Issue 96‎
‎

Send Development mailing list submissions to
        development at qt-project.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        development-request at qt-project.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        development-owner at qt-project.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Development digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Richard Moore)
   2. Re: SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Konstantin Ritt)
   3. Re: SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Giuseppe D'Angelo)
   4. Re: SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Richard Moore)
   5. Re: SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Richard Moore)
   6. Re: Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6 that        don't
      support lambda (Thiago Macieira)
   7. Re: Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6 that        don't
      support lambda (Thiago Macieira)
   8. Re: Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6 that        don't
      support lambda (Thiago Macieira)
   9. Re: SSL Plans for Qt 5.6 (Thiago Macieira)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:30:54 +0000
From: Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>
Subject: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAMp7mVvEJaiD9_PPM9=53vGJPw46WkXzWK=L8vq_7mi93qQMsA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Here's an outline of stuff I'd like to see get done in the Qt 5.6 time
frame:

* Complete removal of openssl 0.9.8 support

This has been unsupported for a while and was really only retained since it
is the only version apple ship on OS X (though they don't actually
recommend using it). Qt 5.5 introduces the new SecureTransport backend for
SSL so there's now no good reason to continue having all the ifdefs.
Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing
the support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to
how the library is searched for when we use dlopen.

* As I've been trying to for ages, I'd like to get the support for OCSP and
OCSP stapling implemented.

* If possible, I'd like to get the rework of the ssl errors API discussed
at last years QtCS implemented.

Cheers

Rich.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20150221/bec5b34e/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:34:31 +0400
From: Konstantin Ritt <ritt.ks at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>
Cc: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAGVE+RkjcprdUzN2fig+=NZjf7N4Ad1E67t1UAtF9GECgo=Vtw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2015-02-21 21:30 GMT+04:00 Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>:

> Here's an outline of stuff I'd like to see get done in the Qt 5.6 time
> frame:
>
> * Complete removal of openssl 0.9.8 support
>
> This has been unsupported for a while and was really only retained since
> it is the only version apple ship on OS X (though they don't actually
> recommend using it). Qt 5.5 introduces the new SecureTransport backend for
> SSL so there's now no good reason to continue having all the ifdefs.
> Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing
> the support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to
> how the library is searched for when we use dlopen.
>

To me, it looks like a subject for 5.5. Why not?

Regards,
Konstantin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20150221/15e9a9c4/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:54:45 +0100
From: "Giuseppe D'Angelo" <dangelog at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>
Cc: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAPm+cvjm48qxP2Ca=N1f6R_wpZjS+v0k5m+1_4jpFe-zS05prA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 21 February 2015 at 18:30, Richard Moore <rich at kde.org> wrote:
> Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing the
> support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to how
> the library is searched for when we use dlopen.

As well as 1.0.0. Should we make Qt 5.6 require 1.0.1 directly?

--
Giuseppe D'Angelo


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:05:29 +0000
From: Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAMp7mVt20M0cSA=_joNePSvMBwmPHp-FobuaCKVf25v26smVmg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 21 February 2015 at 17:34, Konstantin Ritt <ritt.ks at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2015-02-21 21:30 GMT+04:00 Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>:
>
>> Here's an outline of stuff I'd like to see get done in the Qt 5.6 time
>> frame:
>>
>> * Complete removal of openssl 0.9.8 support
>>
>> This has been unsupported for a while and was really only retained since
>> it is the only version apple ship on OS X (though they don't actually
>> recommend using it). Qt 5.5 introduces the new SecureTransport backend for
>> SSL so there's now no good reason to continue having all the ifdefs.
>> Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing
>> the support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to
>> how the library is searched for when we use dlopen.
>>
>
> To me, it looks like a subject for 5.5. Why not?
>
>
5.5 is already feature frozen.

Rich.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20150221/12197d03/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:06:47 +0000
From: Richard Moore <rich at kde.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAMp7mVt15FgSibB65gbsn-EkHhuYrOATEP5x_dc1YUG_pp4kvA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 21 February 2015 at 17:54, Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 February 2015 at 18:30, Richard Moore <rich at kde.org> wrote:
> > Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing
> the
> > support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to how
> > the library is searched for when we use dlopen.
>
> As well as 1.0.0. Should we make Qt 5.6 require 1.0.1 directly?
>
>
I suspect enterprise distros etc. will continue to support 1.0.0 for a
while. I'm not sure of the level of adoption of 1.0.1 at the moment, so I
was erring on the side of caution. Any feedback on this is welcome.

Cheers

Rich.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20150221/087e36d5/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:33:44 -0800
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6
        that    don't support lambda
To: development at qt-project.org
Message-ID: <3702166.8KtAAG9euU at tjmaciei-mobl4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Saturday 21 February 2015 10:46:41 Sebastian Lehmann wrote:
> Its implementation follows straight out of how Q_FOREACH is implemented,
> just adding another for-loop. I only implemented the GCC version back
> then, though.

Hi Sebastian

I "upgraded" Q_FOREACH for 5.4 to make it more readable and optimisable. You
may want to take a look at the new version.

Mostly because it broke yours, as I removed QForeachContainer::brk.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:34:55 -0800
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6
        that    don't support lambda
To: development at qt-project.org
Message-ID: <4345174.WO068EfK1o at tjmaciei-mobl4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Saturday 21 February 2015 09:11:57 Sean Harmer wrote:
> The best approach is likely to be for us to work with QNX to point out
> where  their dinkumware libcpp has problems with specific examples, as we
> are doing regarding the recent constexpr support issue. I'm sure QNX will
> be happy to get pointers as to where they can make improvements to be more
> standard compliant.

Stop shipping Dinkumware and go for either libstdc++ (GPLv3+exception) or for
libc++ (MIT).

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:36:58 -0800
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecating platforms in Qt 5.6
        that    don't support lambda
To: development at qt-project.org
Message-ID: <1622694.Cg4FTqDbLA at tjmaciei-mobl4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Saturday 21 February 2015 09:06:13 Sean Harmer wrote:
> On Friday 20 February 2015 08:02:50 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Friday 20 February 2015 09:49:57 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > I already have added Q_DECL_OVERRIDE to all the examples in
> > > qtbase/examples. The examples are currently compiled as part of CI, but
> > > maybe we should start using lambda and auto in the examples and
> > > disabling
> > > the compilation of them on old compiler.
> > >
> > > Also, what about enabling C++11/14 by default on new projects?
> > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/106797
> > > Or alternatively, making the CONFIG+=c++11 enabled by default or so.
> >
> > Agreed and I would also say that it's perfectly acceptable for new
> > features
> > and especially new modules to require those compiler features.
>
> Is that an actual rule or your opinion? There have been times that we would
> have liked to have been able to use C++11 in Qt3D. But, at the same time I'm
> very aware it would rule out WinCE from our list of possible targets at
> present.

It's been a rule that you can require C++11 core language for some new
features. The only example of a C++11 Standard Library feature dependency is
the use of std::chrono, which is guarded by SD-6 __has_include(<chrono>).

It's up to you: do you think you're going to unduly limit your audience by
using said feature? If so, don't do it.

As Marc says, "C++98 support costs more".
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:38:23 -0800
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Development] SSL Plans for Qt 5.6
To: development at qt-project.org
Message-ID: <4331973.r8sLPxv9o8 at tjmaciei-mobl4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Saturday 21 February 2015 18:06:47 Richard Moore wrote:
> On 21 February 2015 at 17:54, Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 21 February 2015 at 18:30, Richard Moore <rich at kde.org> wrote:
> > > Openssl 0.9.8 will reach EOL in December anyway. In addition to removing
> >
> > the
> >
> > > support from the sources, I suspect this will involve some changes to
> > > how
> > > the library is searched for when we use dlopen.
> >
> > As well as 1.0.0. Should we make Qt 5.6 require 1.0.1 directly?
>
> I suspect enterprise distros etc. will continue to support 1.0.0 for a
> while. I'm not sure of the level of adoption of 1.0.1 at the moment, so I
> was erring on the side of caution. Any feedback on this is welcome.

And with CII supporting OpenSSL now, I don't think we should have a problem
with old versions getting updates.

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


End of Development Digest, Vol 41, Issue 96
*******************************************

More information about the Development mailing list