No announcement yet.

Qt5's Linux Requirements Cause Problems

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    And this isnt a bug because it has allready been stated that my issues isnt going to be fixed by them and to just forget about Xlib all together or fix it my self. Beside that I have several outstanding crital bug reports that are 3 years old and there not going to be fixed eather.
    As long as EGL is not an option on the desktop with nvidia/intel (amd, according to, seems to have a EGL lib), the Qt devs have to care about xlib and glx, since it's the only option to get a valid and working GL context.

    The question is now, how does the kde (or any other de based on qt) project will handle the situation with xcb. The current problem: The qpa implementation does not guarantee for example nativeResourceForWindow("display", window->windowHandle())) what is returned. In the QXcb* implementation there are currently two possibilities: return 0 or an xlib Display -> This depends on how you compile Qt. A de could implement their own QtGuilib, to assure the xlib implementation, but that would be ridicules.


    • #82
      Nvidia drivers being slow to support egl does not mean qt5 is 'destroying linux support', it means nvidia is slow. This is exactly the reason I don't use proprietary drivers in linux


      • #83
        Originally posted by Akka View Post
        Not that I know anything about window manager development, but I get the impression that most of the wms has switched or is in the process of switching from xlib to xcb. This regardless if they use qt or not.
        Thats isnt true there are far more X only window managers than there are XCB one's only a few XCB only WM even exist. If you check the Arch Linux forums you will notice there are several X only WM in development.

        Now when the XCB project started it was our "wayland" at the time and I supported it but the expectation was a well defined api, decent documentation and support as of today none of this has materalized. Apperently they need another 11 years for that to happen.

        This is a serious problem for future WM developers if X is pushed out entirely because unless you can understand protocol specifications there will be no future generation of WM hackers that is if "wayland" doesnt happen.

        Wayland at this point is our only hope XCB will never amount to anything more than what it is now a bandaid.

        You thought XLIB is bad imagen XLib with out any documentation and a development team with a poor attitude twords any potental future developers.


        • #84
          If your going to attempt to skew what I actualy said then why dont you tell all of use what your real name and profession is. Hi my name is Steven Starr I am a Linux Software Developer and I made no such claim's that anything was done in secret.

          What I said was that we as in the people who actualy use Qt were told that Qt5 would be platform agnostic and provide plugins for other backend "like" xcb there was no mention of dropping xlib support and removing those classes that I am aware of but it should have been made very clear on that's what was about to happen. Also the only people I know of that spends all there time on Qt's site are those that are learning to use Qt and not those that allready know how to use it and are qwriteing software. Go look at all the post I ever made and see how many times I asked for help I think you will be surprised that in all the years there might only have been one time.

          You still missing the xcb issue go back and read my last post.

          Bug reports on Qt lol man you are clearly NOT a qt developer, they only fix what bugs they actualy care about there are hundreds of bugs that have gone unfixed for years. Nice try though. lol joker

          Originally posted by hunger View Post
          This article is just plain wrong as already discussed on Qt devnet:

          Yes, you need GLX in X11 to set up accelerated GL in X windows. That is true for both binary as well as open source drivers. GLX is indeed defined in terms of libX11 APIs. libX11 and libXCB could not be used in the same application back when XCB was new.

          But all major distributions have libX11 implemented as a wrapper around XCB nowadays, so this is a non-issue. Anybody using Gnome 3 or unity or running the Qt5 demos can confirm that this rant is wrong.

          The claim that Qt5 dropped X11 support in all secrecy and only this alert user found out about it is rather silly too: That Qt5 will use XCB was in the first announcement of Qt5 which said that X11 support will happen via the xcb lighthouse plugin.

          Basically the guy ranting is missing some functionality that got lost during the refactoring of the code. That happens from time to time. The best way to get this fixed is to file a bug report.
          Last edited by zester; 17 September 2012, 11:05 PM.


          • #85
            Originally posted by nachokb View Post
            ... or at least removing expletives...
            Sorry about that I thought i did one of these f$#% deals for the kids that might be on here but I might be wrong. My mistake I apologise for that.


            • #86
              I am tired now, but I will pick up were I left off tomarrow and respond to every comment made in this thread.


              • #87
                @zester: If there are any specific issues you're having as a result of Qt using XCB, why don't you post them to ?

                As for GLX, Qt integrates with Xlib for those parts (Xlib and XCB cooperate quite well, Qt still uses XOpenDisplay and then transfers control to XCB with XSetEventQueueOwner()), so binary Nvidia and AMD drivers still work.

                The lack of the QX11-classes is a known issue, and something that is planned to be re-added at some point, potentially as an add-on library (QX11Support). In the mean-time, some of it can be worked around outside of Qt, and some of it has new API replacements (for example QX11Info::depth() can be accessed through the new QScreen API). But yeah, for the rest, please submit bug reports so that they get tracked.


                • #88
                  Thanks for clearing up whether you're "real" or not. What you say makes sense, but in that case, why aren't there big problems in KDE land right now? One would imagine that this would also affect KDE, but there's no talk about any such problems right now.


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    Thanks for clearing up whether you're "real" or not. What you say makes sense, but in that case, why aren't there big problems in KDE land right now? One would imagine that this would also affect KDE, but there's no talk about any such problems right now.
                    The last time I used KDE those problems did exist. And plenty of KDE hate to go around over the matter. Point is only a lunatic puts that much faith in an undocumented api. If I didnt document the work that I did my boss would fire my a#$ promptly. And when they started the work on xcb regardless if its a community project, once it took off they took on a responsibility. If you look back in time when it was first purposed the lead dev for xcb had a hell of a time trying to get support from the x team, the xcb you see now isn't the first push. He disapeared for awhile after he was rejected but eventualy was able to gather enough support from the community to get it excepted. That was a long time ago long before the majority of the linux user we have now were around. As I said it was our wayland at the time and visions of well documented api's and new window managers were dancing in our heads.

                    The one thing as a community we can do to fix the situation is to hit the "mailing list", "email", "irc" and "linux news" resources demanding them to fullfill there obligation and document there api's and write some tutorials. Because as of now there not listening

                    I wont stop untill they do, I will hit every linux news resource, forum, irc, mailing list untill they do.
                    Last edited by zester; 19 September 2012, 12:02 AM.


                    • #90
                      Micheal the problem with phoronix is not the content, the ads or that you tend to get excited sometimes and leak info. The problem with phoronix is the forums and the trolling that goes on here. There is a common joke amongst not only my team but many other developers I know. "Phoronix forums are for 12 year old trolls". And most of us just come here read the news and leave. If I was you the next time one of your subscribers/users insults you I would permantly block ban his/her ip. I would be more likely to subscribe to a phoronix subscription if you were pimp slaping vial users then if you were just doing the "sorry sorry!!! and ducking out" If you would like I can moderate for you I will clean this place up promptly.
                      Last edited by zester; 19 September 2012, 12:34 AM.