From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-17 10:13:04
|
Hello all, Is the qt5 merge still in progress? Is there a branch for it and how recent was that taken? I can't really get the status from the list archives but I might have missed it! I'm interested in making a new, long overdue Windows build and wondering what the latest and greatest is and whether it's worth waiting a bit or not? Cheers, Richard |
From: Ted F. <te...@te...> - 2014-06-17 11:19:32
|
On 06/17/2014 05:43 AM, Richard Bown wrote: > Is the qt5 merge still in progress? Is there a branch for it and how > recent was that taken? Status of Qt5 is in patch #53: http://sourceforge.net/p/rosegarden/patches/53/ It is partially complete in trunk. Just needs someone to review and apply the remaining patches. A branch won't be necessary as the changes are mostly Qt4 compatible. Ted. |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-25 11:48:58
|
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Ted Felix <te...@te...> wrote: > It is partially complete in trunk. > I'm about half way through getting the GUI built on Qt5.3.1 with a bit of judicious commenting. Which way are you guys thinking of going regarding the QStyle and Fusion style etc? I'm not sure Style subclassing is the way forward with Qt5? Spotted a few QChar.toAsciis that need fixing but nothing else so far too alarming apart from a QHttp deprecation which I've also ignored. R |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2014-06-25 11:54:29
|
On 06/25/2014 07:48 AM, Richard Bown wrote: > of judicious commenting. Which way are you guys thinking of going > regarding the QStyle and Fusion style etc? I'm not sure Style > subclassing is the way forward with Qt5? I'm thinking let's do whatever it takes to hack around that problem for now, and once everything else is done, I'll go figure out how to make the style stuff work again. Our style stuff is, to put it bluntly, a cluster fuck. Nobody else should ever be expected to deal with that crazy nightmare. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-25 12:42:50
|
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Richard Bown < ric...@fe...> wrote: > nothing else so far too alarming > Saying that nicely teased out a few of course. One I can't get my head around is this in editors/segment/compositionview/CompositionItemImpl.h class CompositionItemImpl : public _CompositionItem { C:\rosegarden-for-windows\RosegardenW\gui\editors\segment\compositionview\CompositionItemImpl.h:40: error: expected class-name before '{' token class CompositionItemImpl : public _CompositionItem { ^ This compiled perfectly the last time I tried this with an older mingw - but this isn't some C++ or compiler vagarie. What am I missing? I am snowblind after half a day. R |
From: Ted F. <te...@te...> - 2014-06-25 13:18:51
|
On 06/25/2014 08:42 AM, Richard Bown wrote: > Saying that nicely teased out a few of course. One I can't get my head > around is this in editors/segment/compositionview/CompositionItemImpl.h > > class CompositionItemImpl : public _CompositionItem { > > C:\rosegarden-for-windows\RosegardenW\gui\editors\segment\compositionview\CompositionItemImpl.h:40: > error: expected class-name before '{' token > class CompositionItemImpl : public _CompositionItem { > ^ I've simplified and rewritten quite a bit of stuff in this area. Neither of those names exist anymore in current rg. CompositionItemImpl and _CompositionItem have been combined into a single CompositionItem. If you've synced up with the latest trunk, it might be as simple as deleting CompositionItemImpl.cpp. OTOH, you might have made changes to it that you need. Seems unlikely as CompositionItem is not OS-dependent. I am chipping away at the qt5 stuff a little today in trunk. Just the ones in areas that I can easily test. Shouldn't cause you too much trouble, I hope. Ted. |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-25 13:15:56
|
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Ted Felix <te...@te...> wrote: > > I've simplified and rewritten quite a bit of stuff in this area. Neither > of those names exist anymore in current rg. Yes I thought as much actually after reviewing what's in SVN. I'm using an old .pro file from the last time I built it which is the cause of some of this. Thanks, Richard |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-26 09:56:39
|
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Richard Bown < ric...@fe...> wrote: > which is the cause of some of this. > Well, its built but I'm having a time trying to get the 32/64 bit dependencies to shake out on Windows 8.1. Dependency walker is showing a mixture of 32 and 64 bit libraries (as I'd expect) but so far I've got no idea how to resolve this. I'm going to go out and have a think but if anyone is interested there is an updated git here: https://github.com/bownie/RosegardenW I'll update this further and of course publish the installer once I've got these issues resolved. R |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-27 13:34:56
|
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Richard Bown < ric...@fe...> wrote: > dependencies to shake out > Well it builds and runs up now and I'm doing some testing and reintroducing some necessary platform specific tweaks. Default theme is a bit nasty though perhaps because it has no style now - so I might change defaults to non-thorn. This is how it runs up as default currently: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=AB182D5267A6EFDD!1901&authkey=!AIHK0cfCpQAXNK0&v=3&ithint=photo%2c.PNG R |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2014-06-30 11:17:25
|
On 06/27/2014 09:07 AM, Richard Bown wrote: > a bit nasty though perhaps because it has no style now - so I might > change defaults to non-thorn. This is how it runs up as default currently: The only thing jumping out at me that's SERIOUSLY wrong is the icons in the notation editor. Every incremental version of Qt has brought new problems to hack around, and I've gotten increasingly brutal about it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Linux version has exactly the same problem. I could potentially do something about your problem, once I'm in a position to build with Qt 5. I'm interested in the style problem, but not remotely interested in trying to figure out any of the rest of it at this point. If I had that all to do over again, I never would have bothered, but the whole Thorn style thing is kind of like a bad marriage. The longer you fool with it, the more you invested you are in not taking a bath on the whole fiasco. Just one more cork to plug up one more hole, and the dam will hold. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-30 16:03:49
|
On 30 Jun 2014, at 13:17, D. Michael McIntyre <ros...@gm...> wrote: > The only thing jumping out at me that's SERIOUSLY wrong is the icons in > the notation editor. So what is wrong with them? I’ll probably not spend that much more time on this ‘release’ (it being an alpha ad-hoc thing still) and will package it up and upload it tonight hopefully. I’d still like to improve the MIDI playback with RtMIDI which is pretty woeful and buggy currently and also tweak some other stuff time permitting over the next period (whatever that period is). Ideally I’d try and merge these changes back into a branch on SVN if I could find a simple and quick solution. The only reason I’m building out of git now is that the file structure better suits QtCreator so I figured just stick it in something modern and help me learn that along with doing some RG work. Any ideas gratefully received. R |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2014-06-30 17:01:38
|
On 06/30/2014 12:03 PM, Richard Bown wrote: > So what is wrong with them? They're all black, unless they're activated. I've run into this kind of problem a lot. I'm sure I could fix it one way or another. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2014-06-30 17:43:13
|
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM, D. Michael McIntyre < ros...@gm...> wrote: > On 06/30/2014 12:03 PM, Richard Bown wrote: > > So what is wrong with them? >> > > They're all black, unless they're activated. I've run into this kind of > problem a lot. I'm sure I could fix it one way or another. Ok, well I've released it anyway seeing as I have no more time to look at it right now. The installer plus the readme is up on SF: https://sourceforge.net/projects/rosegarden/files/rosegarden/14.02-WINDOWS/ It's not necessarily a better or more stable release than the last one but it's an update with latest functionality (whether it works or not I've no idea), it's Qt5, it's a slightly smaller installer - so that's something! R |
From: Tim M. <or...@le...> - 2014-07-01 09:22:27
|
On 06/30/2014 10:01 AM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On 06/30/2014 12:03 PM, Richard Bown wrote: > >> So what is wrong with them? > > They're all black, unless they're activated. I've run into this kind of > problem a lot. I'm sure I could fix it one way or another. > The problem involves background colors in the tool bars (data/rosegarden.qss). Linear gradients were partially broken in qt4, so the gradient direction that didn't work had been replaced with a pixmap. Neither direction seems to work in qt5, so both directions must be now replaced with pixmaps. Tim Munro |
From: D. M. M. <ros...@gm...> - 2014-07-01 20:56:07
|
On 07/01/2014 05:22 AM, Tim Munro wrote: > The problem involves background colors in the tool bars > (data/rosegarden.qss). Linear gradients were partially broken in qt4, so > the gradient direction that didn't work had been replaced with a pixmap. > Neither direction seems to work in qt5, so both directions must be now > replaced with pixmaps. Interesting information. -- D. Michael McIntyre |