[Interest] Future of Qt Opensource SDK?
qt at csipa.in.rs
Sat Oct 13 15:59:55 CEST 2012
On 10/13/2012 11:31 AM, Kate Alhola wrote:
> To Qt survive in mobile space, the Qt SDK is must and it rather should
> be enhanced
> to support also platforms that were not in Nokia version, Android and iOS.
> Currently they are in separate OSS branch that comes with their own
> Even larger proble that having separate QtCreator for every mobile
> target is that no-one of them
> accepts same project .pro.usr . So, when I compile my application
> with standard QtSDK,
> i lose all my Android or iOS project settings.
Yes, I agree that this is (and was) a sticking point for a very long
time. I'd say it primarily depends on Digia or the Qt-project how it
wants to position itself, because it's very easy to snowball into
something unmaintainable - platforms have different priorities, release
schedules, etc, etc. Not to mention the aspect what "desktop guys"
expect vs what "mobile guys" expect (and "embedded guys" and...). This
will IMO especially be a challenge for Digia where, opposed to Nokia,
there is real business going on on the desktop side.
> I don't yet know what is Digia's plan in future with Mobile platforms
> but least
> we should have SDK where new targets could be installed under same SDK
> as plugins and
> if there is in .pro.user target that is not supported by current , it
> is just ignored and not rejected.
I also wish QtCreator handled .pro.user files just a little bit more
gracefully... (I actually launch QtCreator with different envvars so
different versions don't trip over each other too much)
> There is no legal problems and no need to distribute any proprietary
> stuff with SDK. Extra
> proprietary components could be downloaded and installed separately
> with installer.
I don't think that's a professional solution - yes, you can glob from
sites, and even display/accept the various disclaimers, but that's why
it's 'hackery'. Nobody knows when a proprietary component will get
moved, pulled, changed, etc thereby breaking the unified setup. Doing it
'right' *does* require cooperation.
> As mobile targets, may be Symbian is deprecated but MeeGo lives via
> Mer and Jolla.
> Android and iOS are mandatory parts of SDK if we would like to call it
> as a cross platform.
Symbian is not any more (or less) deprecated than the parties involved
decide it is (well, okay, for Qt5 it is - but that opens up another
question of parallel Qt5/Qt4 support). If Mer/Jolla want to maintain a
plugin (or convince Digia or volunteers) to maintain a plugin for MeeGo,
yay! Same for any other platform, see the additions of QNX et al. It's
easy for us (developers) to stomp feet and say "support for X out of the
box is a must!" but then there has to be direct interest (monetary,
community, etc) for someone to actually do it now that the rich uncle is
More information about the Interest