Qt version on GDP 10
stephen.lawrence at renesas.com
Thu May 26 12:46:06 EDT 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederico Cadete [mailto:frederico.cadete at awtce.be]
> Sent: 26 May 2016 15:24
> To: Stephen Lawrence <stephen.lawrence at renesas.com>
> Cc: James Thomas <james.thomas at codethink.co.uk>; license-
> review at mail.genivi.org; genivi-projects at lists.genivi.org
> Subject: Re: Qt version on GDP 10
> > > Regarding QtWayland, it's certainly possible to backport from 5.7
> > > , but that's less than ideal.
> > If it comes to it then might be a good time to reach out to the Qt
> > community to see if others are considering or done the same. Car OEMs
> > can't be the only ones facing this dilemma.
> If we're speaking of backporting the ivi-shell support of qtwayland, then
> actually cars *are* the advertised target ("ivi").
> If you mean the licensing change, nevermind.
I was thinking of code but in the general sense. I was thinking back to the
discussions in Stuttgart and the ongoing work to improve QtWayland, as well
as IVI, integration. I had heard the most recent versions contained improvements.
So if multiple industries find themselves on a holding pattern on an earlier
version there might be community collaboration around a specific version becoming a
"long term" support, possibly with backported or new features.
That said you make a good point about the ivi target :) I could imagine screen
control is of interest beyond ivi but I don't know if other industries are adopting
IVI-Shell/IVI-Extenstion? Would be interesting to know.
> I've "backported" the ivi-shell patch to qt 5.5  (the maintained branch in
> meta-qt5 jethro). It was a completely clean cherry-pick. Personally I think it's
> easier to cherry-pick this patch than to mix and match poky and meta-qt5
> branches, but it's up to the GDP maintainers to judge this.
Thanks useful to know.
More information about the genivi-projects