[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       osdl-lsb-discuss
Subject:    Re: [lsb-discuss] Qt 4 decision
From:       Markus Rex <msrex () suse ! de>
Date:       2007-09-05 12:38:51
Message-ID: 20070905123851.GF13946 () suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sep 05, 07 14:29:55 +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >We've had the Qt 4 issue hanging for a while now, and the time has come
> >to make up our minds.  There has been some discussion of the issues of
> >upgrading Qt 4 to mandatory, and some responses (by, among others,
> >TrollTech, who has indicated they are willing to fix issues that need
> >fixing).
> >
> >So, it's time to hash it out and fix things, or decide finally that
> >we're not going to do it for some set of good reasons.
> >
> >As of now, the LSB position is that Qt 4 will become mandatory for LSB
> >3.2, subject to TrollTech's assistance in uplifting the standard such
> >that it covers the common set of Qt 4 ABIs shipping in the major distros
> >currently shipping in LSB 3.1-certified distros, and in otherwise fixing
> >QA issues in the current Qt 4 specs and tests.
> One of the issues with Qt4 ABI specification is lack of documentation 
> for some interfaces.
> 
> Please find attached the list of undocumented Qt4 interfaces, which are 
> included in the standard.
> They are grouped in three sheets:
> 
>  Regular interfaces      -  360 entries
>  Meta-related interfaces -  460 entries
>  Destructors             -   78 entries
> 
> 
> We have to make a decision regarding to each of the interfaces.
> I see the following three options:
> - create specification text for an interface;
> - exclude an interface from the standard;
> - say that an interface have not be used by ISVs directly,
>  but it have to be present in all LSB-compliant distros.
>  In this case we also have to define what is valid behaviour of the 
> interface.

I would prefer the 1st option, although the sheer number of interfaces
could make this a timing challenge.

  Markus

-- 
Markus Rex   (msrex@suse.de)
Chief Technology Officer, The Linux Foundation 
http://www.linux-foundation.org/

It's much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]