| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 3 | |
hi, i downloaded the x11 x64 open source edition of qt, and compiled like this: ./configure -no-qt3support -optimized-qmake make make install now qt applications use windows style instead of cleanlooks, and there is no antialiasing and the default font that shows in qt designer and in my application is helvetica 13 which is massive. When i start with -style cleanlooks, it is cleanlooks, but still same font and still no antialiasing. see screenshot who has a clue? greets naja
Attachment:
Attachment:
Screenshot.png
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PNG image
Message 2 in thread
Hi,
> now qt applications use windows style instead of cleanlooks, and there
> is no antialiasing and the default font that shows in qt designer and in
> my application is helvetica 13 which is massive. When i start with
> -style cleanlooks, it is cleanlooks, but still same font and still no
> antialiasing.
Antialiasing could be disabled because some (development) package is missing.
For verbose out put, try running:
configure -v
Do you anything suspect related to "Xrender support" or "FontConfig support"?
About the style, are you running Qt applications under Gnome? Do you see a
difference compared to Qt 4.3 or some other version of Qt?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 3 in thread
Hi,
thank you for the fast reaction. I ran this:
make confclean
./configure -v -make libs -make tools -no-qt3support -optimized-qmake
I attach the output because it's long and there are some errors, not only
with xrender, but also about other extensions as png, tiff, freetype etc...
it seems most extensions give errors. There is a lot of stuff not supported,
for example these
Xinerama support .... no
Xcursor support ..... no
Xfixes support ...... no
Xrandr support ...... no
Xrender support ..... no
FontConfig support .. no
I presume that my application, if it works with a custom built qt and the
user might not have qt installed, has to depend on several packages to make
sure the user has them installed... Is there a list of which packages a user
must have?
This is what i have installed when looking in synaptic:
- libxrender1 -- 1:0.9.4-1 (hardy) // there is also a -dev version that is
not installed...
- fontconfig -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
- fontconfig-config -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
- libfontconfig1 -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3 // there is also a -dev version
that is not installed...
- libxft2 -- 2.1.12-2ubuntu5 // there is also a -dev
version that is not installed...
About the style, are you running Qt applications under Gnome? Do you see a
> difference compared to Qt 4.3 or some other version of Qt?
>
yes, gnome. Before I changed to hardy, i had gutsy 32bit with Qt 4.3.4 and
everything looked fine, defaulting to cleanlooks.
thx
naja
Message 4 in thread
On Friday 16 May 2008, Naja Melan wrote:
> Xrender support ..... no
> - libxrender1 -- 1:0.9.4-1 (hardy) // there is also a -dev version that
> is not installed...
You want the -dev package.
> - fontconfig -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
> - fontconfig-config -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
> - libfontconfig1 -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3 // there is also a -dev version
> that is not installed...
You want the -dev package.
Ubuntu doesn't install too many -dev packages by default, so it's always like
this when you compile something not trivial on a newly installed Ubuntu.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
Indeed, this is because you were missing the XRender dev packages while
configuring Qt. Install them, re-run configure, make and it should work
fine.
Regarding the behavior change: In 4.3 QCleanlooks would be used
regardless, but since it actually requires XRender to look correctly, it
will simply default to Windows style with Qt 4.4.0. You can still force
it, but I assume you would rather install the missing dev packages to
make things work correctly.
Jens
> Hi,
>
> thank you for the fast reaction. I ran this:
>
> make confclean
> ./configure -v -make libs -make tools -no-qt3support -optimized-qmake
>
> I attach the output because it's long and there are some errors, not
> only with xrender, but also about other extensions as png, tiff,
> freetype etc... it seems most extensions give errors. There is a lot of
> stuff not supported, for example these
>
> Xinerama support .... no
> Xcursor support ..... no
> Xfixes support ...... no
> Xrandr support ...... no
> Xrender support ..... no
> FontConfig support .. no
>
> I presume that my application, if it works with a custom built qt and
> the user might not have qt installed, has to depend on several packages
> to make sure the user has them installed... Is there a list of which
> packages a user must have?
>
> This is what i have installed when looking in synaptic:
>
> - libxrender1 -- 1:0.9.4-1 (hardy) // there is also a -dev version
> that is not installed...
>
> - fontconfig -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
> - fontconfig-config -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3
> - libfontconfig1 -- 2.5.0-2ubuntu3 // there is also a -dev
> version that is not installed...
> - libxft2 -- 2.1.12-2ubuntu5 // there is also a -dev
> version that is not installed...
>
>
>
>
>
> About the style, are you running Qt applications under Gnome? Do you
> see a difference compared to Qt 4.3 or some other version of Qt?
>
>
> yes, gnome. Before I changed to hardy, i had gutsy 32bit with Qt 4.3.4
> and everything looked fine, defaulting to cleanlooks.
>
>
> thx
> naja
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 6 in thread
yes thank you, it works now.
I wondered if it made sense to install and enable all those X packages like
Xrand and Xshape and XKB etc... Is it better to enable them, or do they just
make the libs bigger?
Am i also right that i don't lose anything by turning exceptions off? Since
they are on by default?
greets
naja
Message 7 in thread
Hi,
> I wondered if it made sense to install and enable all those X packages
> like Xrand and Xshape and XKB etc... Is it better to enable them, or do
> they just make the libs bigger?
It won't make the libraries much bigger, but it will add extra dependencies.
On the other hand these dependencies are installed by default on all recent
distribution, including yours. You're probably missing the *-dev* packages
only, not the libraries themselves.
> Am i also right that i don't lose anything by turning exceptions off?
> Since they are on by default?
Well, you lose exception support :-)
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:49:23 Dimitri wrote:
> > Am i also right that i don't lose anything by turning exceptions off?
> > Since they are on by default?
>
> Well, you lose exception support :-)
As well as some modules that don't build without exception support.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
