zeljko at holobit.net
Tue Nov 10 08:29:30 CET 2009
On Monday 09 November 2009 23:41, Den Jean wrote:
> The binding source is created by scripts, with many manual steps.
> A Qt binding is actually always alot of manual work (defining
> solutions to every exception, just read the so called typedef
> system of QtJambi or a kalyptus generator. If one day I
> have too much time, I could start again from scratch,
> use e.g. parts of the QtJambi project that is available now,
> and publish everything. Now I do not even find
> time to clean up everything and publish it or
> make a nicer website. Everyone points at smoke instead of
> QtJambi, but after so many years, smoke is still
> undocumented. This is one of the reasons mentioned
> by PySide developers to not use smoke. I started many years ago
> when smoke info was even more scarce.
I've tried yesterday to find some docs about smoke , but there's definitelly
nothing, so that means that you should learn everything from source
(definitelly a PITA).
> Because a debian maintainer refuses to include the FPC Qt binding because
> it is not based on smoke, I will not change it to smoke. But everyone is
> free to create one. I guess it would be more interesting if you would
> spend time in creating packages.
Agree. Smoke is nice thing, but just for developers who made it and some other
ppl with a lot spare time to learn from source.
Leave it as it is , don't waste your time, just try to create deb's and rpm's
for binary bindings and that's it (I already have rpm spec for libqt4intf).
More information about the Qt