[osg-users] Feedback/guidance sought on move of osgQt out into it's own project/repository

[Sebastian Messerschmidt]

Hi,

I'd vote for keeping osgQT in the core, with maintenance for  the 
current Qt version only.
Basically that would mean to keep the legacy qt things out of the core, 
thus reducing maintenance efforts but keeping compatibility for the 
current versions.
Right now the Qt+OSG combination is frustrating enough and pushing it 
out of the core won't improve the situation. Yet a lot of people use 
this combination (osgEarth I think is using it definitively), so totally 
separating it might decrease acceptance.
So basically having the Qt5 version supported by the current OSG version 
would be beneficial for the "stock" user, maintaining a separate 
Qt[insertOldVersionHere] repository would satisfy the needs of the "I'm 
stuck to  insertOldVersionHere - x" people.

I'm not a fan of removign osgQt altogether.

Cheers
Sebastian
> Hi Werner,
>
> The key problem we have is that the osgQt can't support both Qt4 and
> Qt5 without rebuilding osgQt.  This is fine if you build the OSG
> yourself, but for distributions that include OSG binaries have to
> choose between OSG with Qt4 or Qt5.  This just doesn't work for all
> end users, it's broken and can't be fixed while Qt is directly
> integrated into the OSG.
>
> Once osgQt is out of the core OSG there will be the potential for
> supporting both Qt4 and Qt5.  How best to manage this needs to be
> something that the OSG Qt community decide to manage.
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> On 6 September 2016 at 14:49, Werner Modenbach
> <Werner.Modenbach at texion.eu> wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> if I recognized well, there are still frequent questions on the list about
>> Qt-interface in OSG.
>> At least we are using it very intensely. There was not much move in the
>> interface since long and so
>> we just take it as it was and as it works so far.
>> The threading problem is a bit unsatisfactory but we learned to live with
>> it.
>>
>> For us it would be a big problem if further compatibility between OSG and Qt
>> would break.
>> I fully understand that you like to focus on the real OSG related tasks.
>> I have no idea what the best way would be for the future.
>> Unfortunately I also have not enough expertise to support Qt interface.
>>
>> But I instantly hope there will be a good solution.
>>
>> - Werner -
>>
>>
>> Am 06.09.2016 um 15:09 schrieb Robert Osfield:
>>
>> Do we not have any Qt users anymore? No one care enough to chip in?
>>
>> I'm not going to wait around forever before making decisions.  I need
>> to get on with moving the OSG towards OSG-3.6.
>>
>> The OSG/Qt users need to decide how they want to progress from here
>> once osgQt has been move out from the core OSG.  If you don't step up
>> then osgQt will likely languish unloved and unsupported. I don't have
>> the Qt expertise to do the support, you guys need to step up.
>> _______________________________________________
>> osg-users mailing list
>> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
>> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> TEXION Software Solutions, Rotter Bruch 26a, D-52068 Aachen
>> Phone: +49 241 475757-0
>> Fax: +49 241 475757-29
>> Web: http://texion.eu
>> eMail: info at texion.eu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osg-users mailing list
>> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
>> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org