Re: [meta-qt5][PATCH] qtbase.inc: Enable accessibility by default

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2680 bytes --]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> 2014-05-14 21:04 GMT+02:00 Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:27:39PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >>>> qtdeclarative requires accessibility to be enabled and it is added by
> >>>> default to the toolchain so we ought to have it enabled to ensure the
> >>>> default toolchain generation works.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> >> ...
> >>> As I told you on gtalk, I would prefer default to stay as minimal as
> >>> posible, why don't you change packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target.bb to
> >>> use RRECOMMENDS instead of RDEPENDS so that missing
> >>> qtquickcontrols-qmlplugins package doesn't break it when it's not
> >>> available (because it's empty)?
> >>
> >> I don't have a strong opinion for either case however I think we ought
> >> to know what other meta-qt5 users think about it.
> >>
> >> In support to this patch addition I think we ought to provide the most
> >> used features of Qt5 working out of box to users have a good first
> >> use. Special cases can customize it per need basis. I think QML is
> >> common enough for us to provide full support for it by default.
> >
> >
> > Martin and I have different views on this topic and I'd like to merge
> > or drop this patch. Could people comment on this one?
> >
> 
> 
> We may want to be able to let the user choose between 2 flavors of Qt.
> 
> One of them could be a standard Qt (which is what I use), other users
> seem to prefer a stripped down version with some features switched
> off.
> 
> As 'Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo@kdab.com>' noted on qt-interest [1]:
> "Apart from this: builds with feature switches are not really tested,
> so I'm not surprised that [there are combinations that don't even
> build]. But we totally welcome patches that would fix such builds."
> 
> So IMO it would be a good idea to have a constantly tested low
> footprint version.
> 
> There is no one size fits all in this case, but can we provide 2
> versions that work for 99% of the users?

What you mean by 2 versions here?

There is simple PACKAGECONFIG option to enable more features (most
people will probably enable icu, gl* and accessibility).

But we don't want 2 qtbase recipes one with more PACKAGECONFIG options
enabled and other with more disabled.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]