[Development] Basing Qt Creator Coding Style on C++ Core Guidelines?

[Marco Bubke]

On November 22, 2016 00:47:26 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:

> On segunda-feira, 21 de novembro de 2016 23:18:08 PST Marco Bubke wrote:
>> I strongly agree with Andre'. And is a BC break in the time of flat pack
>> that bad? As an user I really looking forward to flat pack,  so I can
>> update my heavily used Applications and being not dependent on
>> distribution. This package could be much better optimize with LTO and
>> profile guided optimization. Maybe sharing everything is not that smart
>> anymore.
>
> FlatPaks don't work for Qt.
>
> Reasons:
>
> /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/styles/breeze.so
> /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/platformthemes/KDEPlasmaPlatformTheme.so
>
> If you include Qt in your flatpak or equivalent, then your Qt application will 
> not load the system plugins and will thus not have native look and feel in a 
> Plasma desktop or in LXQt.

So you say it it does not work because of themeing support? Isn't Qt Controls 2 not anymore providing them too. And is there no technical solutions for that? Like propagating the values to the Flatpack themeing engine. This could be improve the interoperability between different desktop libraries too. The implementation which is based on GTK or Qt is suboptimal anyway. It shows visually why Linux Desktop was never widely adopted. I mean the lack of cooperation and the hesitancy to try to understand the context of the other. I use Linux all the day, but honestly many things are broken, especially where Unix wasn't copied.


> If you don't include Qt or if the included Qt loads plugins, then BC is 
> required.
>
> -- 
> 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