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

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2014-05-14 21:04 GMT+02:00 Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>:
> Hello folks,
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at 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 at 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 at 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?



[1] http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2014-May/012237.html


-- 
Regards
Samuel