FlightGear Qt launcher: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Canvas: http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34196458/)
Line 53: Line 53:


=== Dependencies ===
=== Dependencies ===
For the time being, Qt is only needed for the launcher feature, which is automatically disabled if it is not found<ref>http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33498614/</ref>.
If CMake does not find QT5 then it skips the QT launcher compilation<ref>http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33498869/</ref>. Thus, Qt5 is an optional build dependency and people can continue to use other other front-ends (fgrun, fgx etc).
We need to have the discussion if it should become the default launcher for Windows (Linux and other Unixes are less relevant, it’s up to the distribution packagers).
If, how and when the internal gui can leverage Qt is under investigation and in such an early state that those responsible preferred to not announce anything yet. If this ever happens, this will be discussed on the mailing list<ref>http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=229563#p229563</ref>
{{FGCquote
{{FGCquote
   |There's been a strong devision of opinion among a couple of core developers with respect to the question whether a QT dependency is desirable or not. In one of the hangouts, a couple of months ago, we had the chance to discuss the pros and cons, when the most outspoken developers regarding this issue were both present. We concluded that a QT dependency was undesirable, unless it had a specific benefit. With this in mind, I proposed to consider the option of allowing a QT dependency in only one module (call it FGGui). For all practical purposes, this would be a platform independent replacement of fgrun, but because of the proposed modularity, it will appear to be seamlessly integrated with FlightGear. Both developers representing the opposite ends of the debate could live with this compromise.
   |There's been a strong devision of opinion among a couple of core developers with respect to the question whether a QT dependency is desirable or not. In one of the hangouts, a couple of months ago, we had the chance to discuss the pros and cons, when the most outspoken developers regarding this issue were both present. We concluded that a QT dependency was undesirable, unless it had a specific benefit. With this in mind, I proposed to consider the option of allowing a QT dependency in only one module (call it FGGui). For all practical purposes, this would be a platform independent replacement of fgrun, but because of the proposed modularity, it will appear to be seamlessly integrated with FlightGear. Both developers representing the opposite ends of the debate could live with this compromise.
Line 68: Line 61:
   }}
   }}
}}
}}
For the time being, Qt is only needed for the launcher feature, which is automatically disabled if it is not found<ref>http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33498614/</ref>.
If CMake does not find QT5 then it skips the QT launcher compilation<ref>http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33498869/</ref>. Thus, Qt5 is an optional build dependency and people can continue to use other other front-ends (fgrun, fgx etc).
We need to have the discussion if it should become the default launcher for Windows (Linux and other Unixes are less relevant, it’s up to the distribution packagers).
If, how and when the internal gui can leverage Qt is under investigation and in such an early state that those responsible preferred to not announce anything yet. If this ever happens, this will be discussed on the mailing list<ref>http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=229563#p229563</ref>


=== Canvas ===
=== Canvas ===

Navigation menu