=== chriadam|away is now known as chriadam
=== salem_ is now known as _salem
[06:39] <sturmflut2> anybody here with an arale handset who could test a game for a moment?
[06:50] <DanChapman> morning all o/
[07:20] <karni> Which 5.x Qt version do we have on the phone?
[07:24] <karni> I gather 14.10 is Qt 5.1
[07:30] <karni> zbenjamin: yo bruh, you around?
[07:47] <DanChapman> karni IIRC 14.10 == Qt5.3.1 and 15.04 == Qt 5.4
[07:49] <karni> DanChapman: thank you, that's helpful :)
[08:19] <popey> karni: DanChapman http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=libqt5core5a is handy for this.
[08:19] <karni> popey: very handy! thank you
[08:19] <popey> np
[08:19] <zbenjamin> karni: yep
[08:20] <zbenjamin> didrocks: hey about bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtcreator-plugin-ubuntu/+bug/1461597  .. we aready do the naming like that. No?
[08:20] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1461597 in qtcreator-plugin-ubuntu (Ubuntu) "kit names should contain device name + simplified framework version" [Medium,In progress]
[08:21] <zbenjamin> didrocks: "krillin" would be the model name
[08:21] <zbenjamin> didrocks: the device name would be by default "Ubuntu Device"
[08:22] <zbenjamin> didrocks: or did we want the default device name to be the "model name"
[08:30] <didrocks> zbenjamin: IIRC, bzoltan renamed on his machine the kits name, so instead of "UbuntuSDK for armhf (GCC ubuntu-sdk-14.10-utopic)" he simplified it and we agreed that it would be a nice pattern to follow
[08:31] <didrocks> bzoltan: can you share what you renamed them to?
[08:31] <didrocks> (IIRC, we also told we can drop the -utopic)
[08:31] <didrocks> probably GCC as well
[08:31] <didrocks> for instance the "Desktop" one is a nice example, we can follow that scheme for other kits
[08:32] <bzoltan> didrocks: I simple renamed the device on the Devices page and deleted/recreated the Kit. As the Kit name comes from the device name .. what we should do is to give the name by the device type
[08:33] <didrocks> yeah, making sense
[08:33] <bzoltan> zbenjamin:  ^ Like krillin, mako, etc
[08:39] <zbenjamin> didrocks: bzoltan: well the UbuntuSDK for armhf (GCC ubuntu-sdk-14.10-utopic) is a special Kit. It is always autocreated even without a device
[08:40] <zbenjamin> didrocks: bzoltan: i can stop doing that but then users without a device won't have a kit
[08:40] <seb128> hum, are kits device specific?
[08:40] <zbenjamin> seb128: yes
[08:40] <seb128> in which way?
[08:40] <seb128> the sdk is the same on any device
[08:40] <seb128> I for sure didn't write a mako and a krillin version of my apps
[08:40] <zbenjamin> seb128: 14.10 vs 15.04
[08:41] <seb128> well, that's not a device difference
[08:41] <seb128> it's a software channel
[08:41] <zbenjamin> seb128: Kit != chroot. So if you know what you are doing you can of course manually change the device in a kit
[08:41] <bzoltan> seb128:  :) https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/blog/2015/03/18/everything-you-always-wanted-know-about-kits-were-afraid-ask/
[08:42] <seb128> bzoltan, thanks
[08:42] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: didrocks: we can of course always require a device in order to create a ubuntu kit
[08:42] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: didrocks: but that will make the first run wizard a bit more complex. And its a not so small task
[08:43] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: didrocks: because then the user needs to attach a device
[08:43] <bzoltan> zbenjamin:  having a generic Kit when no devices are available is good idea. That is different use case
[08:43] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: or we can just not automatically create them. But give the user a button somewhere to "Create generic Kit"
[08:43] <bzoltan> zbenjamin:  I would not overcomplicate ... as first step let's fix how we call our devices.
[08:43] <zbenjamin> but where?
[08:44] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: thats not easy as well. The devices are called "Ubuntu Device" because atm where we detect them (device_search) we do not know the model name. As the device_search ALWAYS returns mako
[08:45] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: so we would need to reimplement the device_search script to do the right thing
[08:45] <seb128> I don't understand why I need different kits to deploy to a bq4.5 and a bq5 if they are on the same system image channel
[08:45] <bzoltan> zbenjamin: are you sure... I do not have my krillin with me, but I recall it reported to be krillin
[08:45] <seb128> those are exactly the same stacks
[08:46] <zbenjamin> seb128: whats the problem with having a different kit?
[08:46] <bzoltan> seb128:  Kits have devices assigned ... if you have two devices one 5 and one 4.5 the IDE should identify them
[08:46] <didrocks> zbenjamin: I guess it's ok to recycle the generic Kit when creating an emulator device
[08:46] <didrocks> that way we can fuzz out the confusion between kits and chroot
[08:46] <bzoltan> seb128:  and yes, they will use the very same chroot and toolchain
[08:47] <seb128> zbenjamin, it's confusing/noise/duplication
[08:47] <didrocks> which is puzzling everyone, see seb128's case ;)
[08:47] <didrocks> and most of the feedback I had
[08:47] <seb128> didrocks, what is confusing me is not what we have now, but people wanting to use the device name
[08:47] <bzoltan> seb128: didrocks: this is something we can not help... contradictint requrements :)
[08:47] <zbenjamin> seb128: didrocks: as i said before Kits are a essential part of QtCreator they won't go away. And they provide a clean way to combine a toolchain and a device
[08:48] <seb128> hum, k
[08:48] <seb128> I don't understand what the device part is about, but alright
[08:48] <didrocks> seb128: what you think what you have today isn't actually what kit is :)
[08:48] <zbenjamin> seb128: wait we use the device name right now when you autocreate a kit
[08:48] <didrocks> seb128: even if I don't really like how this acts, I'm trying at least avoiding the confusion
[08:49] <bzoltan> didrocks: seb128:  folks want two contradicting features: 1) when I have two devices plugged in i want to be able to switch between them with a single move 2) I want a single clikc
[08:49] <zbenjamin> seb128: you will always need only one 15.04 chroot. A Kit is just a configuration thingie that tells QtC use that chroot with that device
[08:49] <seb128> zbenjamin, my kit is named "UbuntuSDK for armhf (GCC ubuntu-sdk-14.10-utopic)", no device name in there
[08:49] <bzoltan> didrocks: seb128: these two just simple do not blend :)
[08:50] <zbenjamin> seb128: so what you have now is, you can attach your 2 BQ devices at the same time, and by switching the Kit you can run your apps on them
[08:50] <seb128> zbenjamin, alright, the concept is a bit confusing, I would expect a "target platform" e.g sdk-15.04 and to pick a device where to deploy
[08:50] <zbenjamin> seb128: a different way would be to always only support one device being attached at the same time
[08:50] <zbenjamin> seb128: what device to pick if you have 2 15.04 attached?
[08:51] <seb128> 15.04 what?
[08:51] <zbenjamin> devices
[08:51] <seb128> that's the software target
[08:51] <seb128> like the chroot
[08:51] <seb128> then the devices can be listed as "device to deplay to" in a combo or something
[08:51] <seb128> it's just confusing to mix the software platform you target with the actual devices
[08:51] <didrocks> seb128: the device target is a "kit" in qtcreator terminology
[08:51] <zbenjamin> so you want a combobox to pop up every time you press run?
[08:52] <seb128> no, I want to select a device and have that one used
[08:52] <zbenjamin> thats what you have now
[08:52] <seb128> didrocks, k, it's just the "kit" wording that is confusing then
[08:52] <zbenjamin> :D
[08:52] <didrocks> zbenjamin: and a "use latest device" checkbox to avoid reasking for the session
[08:52] <seb128> they should call it "device"
[08:52] <seb128> or "deploy target"
[08:52] <seb128> when you tell me "kit" I don't think "device"
[08:53] <didrocks> seb128: bug #1461021
[08:53] <ubot5> bug 1461021 in qtcreator-plugin-ubuntu (Ubuntu) "We should revise the use of the "kits" term" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1461021
[08:53] <seb128> didrocks, thanks :-)
[08:53] <zbenjamin> didrocks: you know that is a upstream bug right :D
[08:53] <didrocks> zbenjamin: yeah, I'm still unsure it's not somewhere where we need to deviate from upstream
[08:54] <zbenjamin> didrocks: i think replacing strings is not a useful task. It will require us to carry distropatches around that do not add any value
[08:54] <seb128> they do add values if they make things less confusing for our users
[08:54] <zbenjamin> didrocks: if its called "Kit" or "Deploy Target" makes no difference. Its terminology , once learned you know what it means
[08:54] <seb128> "once learned"
[08:54] <seb128> it makes the learning curve more difficult
[08:55] <bzoltan> seb128:  The "Kit" is not a device either
[08:55] <zbenjamin> yes every new development ide will give you a learning curve. And QtCs is not the worst
[08:55] <seb128> and increase the chances people give up on your platform because they can't be bothered dealing with all the non-sense
[08:56] <zbenjamin> probably the concept of "Kits" are not easy to understand. But a name won't change that
[08:56] <zbenjamin> the concept will stay the same
[08:56] <bzoltan> seb128: I still do not understand why you think it is non-sense ... it totally makes sense. You are the one who wants two contradicting features :)
[08:56] <seb128> k, fair enough
[08:57] <seb128> bzoltan, I don't want any feature, "kit" just doesn't speak to me and I find it makes things confusing
[08:57] <seb128> I associated kit === chroot target
[08:57] <seb128> but apparently wrongly
[08:57] <bzoltan> seb128:  You do, but you do not realize .. you want to switch between multiple attached devices, right?
[08:57] <seb128> and I'm probably not the only one confused about that
[08:57] <zbenjamin> Qt is not only high level software platform (15.04 vs 14.10) its also (armhf vs x86 vs any_other_arch) . By that you can not just have a device at the other end
[08:58] <didrocks> bzoltan: so, basically, in android studio, the mapping is more with what seb128 and I tought about
[08:58] <didrocks> (and I think it makes sense for most of developers)
[08:58] <didrocks> like you create a project
[08:58] <didrocks> select a framework target (which is the chroot)
[08:58] <didrocks> then, when you want to run it, there is a popup to select your device
[08:58] <seb128> zbenjamin, right, but I know that my devices are same archs and same ubuntu channels, basically they have the exact same software setup
[08:58] <bzoltan> didrocks:  keep in mind that android studio is a platform specific IDE
[08:58] <didrocks> (emulator or real device)
[08:58] <zbenjamin> didrocks: bzoltan: well what i could imagine is to have a "15.04-armhf" device. That automatically maps to a attached device that matches the description. But it will render all existing project configurations void
[08:58] <didrocks> bzoltan: we want to create the "ubuntu tools" though
[08:59] <didrocks> it being qtcreator is an implementation detail
[08:59] <bzoltan> didrocks:  we do
[08:59] <zbenjamin> didrocks: bzoltan: and its a month of work
[08:59] <didrocks> and should not change our goal
[09:00] <didrocks> zbenjamin: hum, that would be a nice goal, not sure that's going to work when you have an emulator + a device attached
[09:00] <didrocks> for instance
[09:00] <zbenjamin> didrocks: popups are sooooo 1990
[09:00] <didrocks> so not sure it worthes it
[09:00] <didrocks> zbenjamin: yeah, but you get it only once
[09:00] <didrocks> then, it reuses the same device
[09:00] <zbenjamin> didrocks: exactly what i hate with dialogs. What if i want to change it ?
[09:00] <didrocks> (until it's unavailable of course)
[09:00] <zbenjamin> didrocks: i will need to search for the options somewhere
[09:00] <didrocks> you have an entry for that
[09:01] <didrocks> yeah, that can be the "devices" mode
[09:01] <didrocks> as we have today
[09:01] <zbenjamin> why would i need a devices mode in that model?
[09:01] <zbenjamin> ok for creating the emulators maybe
[09:01] <zbenjamin> but i won't have a list of devices like i do know
[09:01] <didrocks> zbenjamin: seeing connected device
[09:01] <didrocks> as there can be some connection issues
[09:02] <didrocks> or developer mode not switched on
[09:02] <didrocks> and so on
[09:02] <zbenjamin> all i would have is:   "15.04-armf, 15.04-i386, 14.10-armhf,...."
[09:02] <zbenjamin> didrocks: and you would definately loose the ability to attach more than one device. Probably the first attached device would always win
[09:03] <zbenjamin> or the last
[09:03] <didrocks> zbenjamin: no, as you would ask when you start you project
[09:03] <didrocks> and run for the first time of the session
[09:03] <zbenjamin> Well either i have generic devices, or specific devices. I can not have both
[09:03] <didrocks> then, you can reuse the "Run" button to change between device (but yeah, it's a major deviation from upstream)
[09:04] <zbenjamin> the QtC has a device type called IDevice i need to derive from
[09:04] <zbenjamin> i can not do both
[09:04] <zbenjamin> otherwise all devices would still show up and it would be a mess
[09:07]  * zbenjamin thought this is a easy bug... just a quick change of some strings :D
[09:07] <didrocks> I guess we should really investigate on what the developers expect
[09:07] <didrocks> as in user testing
[09:07] <didrocks> I have the view on what others platforms are doing
[09:08] <didrocks> you have the one specific to QtC
[09:08] <didrocks> so I guess the best would be to have "real world usage"
[09:08] <didrocks> with someone agnostic to the platform
[09:08] <didrocks> and see what they do expect when they create a project to target a framework/device
[09:08] <didrocks> (unsure how we can achieve it though)
[09:20] <zbenjamin> didrocks: :/
[09:21] <didrocks> zbenjamin: I didn't dare asking for a pool, because you know… pools are answers to everything! :p
[09:21] <zbenjamin> didrocks: keep in mind we also will have "ubuntu desktop" device targets. That are not the traditional "Desktop" targets. Means they will be more like devices with click and so on
[09:22] <zbenjamin> didrocks: like this? http://www.pool-magazin.com/wp-content/gallery/50_elegantes_pooldesign/Pool.jpg :D
[09:22] <bzoltan> didrocks: sure we could use some user tests.. but note, that our IDE is out there for like 3 years for app development and I hav never received complainment about the Kit concept. Developers seem to understand that it is a Qt-ish thingy and they deal with it.
[09:22] <didrocks> zbenjamin: oh yeah, I want that one, NOW! :-)
[09:23] <zbenjamin> didrocks: +1 :D
[09:24] <didrocks> bzoltan: yeah, but most of devs only had one device
[09:24] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: there are some bugs i would like to target to the new QtC release. Can we have a milestone for that?
[09:24] <didrocks> bzoltan: you never heard complain from seb128 for instance because he thought the Kit was something else
[09:24] <bzoltan> didrocks:  for those developers who we had interaction in the last years are not new to Qt ... BB, Meego, Sailfish all used QtC and most of the non android/ios linux mobile developers do understand the idea
[09:24] <didrocks> until he would try on a second one :)
[09:25] <zbenjamin> bzoltan: or should i just target it to 15.10
[09:25] <bzoltan> didrocks: I did hear seb128 as I did hear from few _only_ ubuntu _only_ gtk app developers... few, not many
[09:27] <seb128> lol
[09:28] <bzoltan> seb128:  sorry dude :) There is a world outside of the bubble :)
[09:29] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin, bzoltan: I just created an empty "QML App with Simpe UI (qmlproject)" project for the 14.10 framework on my 15.04 desktop, and while it runs fine, I just get a lot of items saying "Error" when I go to the "Publish" tab and press on "Build and validate click package"
[09:29] <seb128> bzoltan, yeah, I'm unsure I consider myself as a gtk dev, I don't do much gtk nowadays, I spend more time on the touch code and qt/qml than on gtk for sure
[09:29] <seb128> bzoltan, also GTK doesn't have an IDE, so you can't say I was used at their tools :p
[09:30] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: huh. Can you paste the output from the compiler tab?
[09:30] <didrocks> zbenjamin: bzoltan: so, to come back on the bug, I think putting the device name as we originally plan, would be the less intrusive fix for now and giving a clearer idea of what a kit is
[09:30] <didrocks> (as we discussed during the sprint)
[09:31] <didrocks> at least, that would be a step in less confusion, and so right direction (even if as told, we need to dig more on this)
[09:31] <didrocks> and this is compatible with QtC paradigm
[09:31] <bzoltan> seb128: didrocks: to be honest I am serious about this. I am not defending anything... but for other linux SDKs it was pretty trivial and obvious that the toolchain+device type+API set needs an umbrella... here with ubuntu we are spoiled  with the luxury of using our own toolchain and targeting our native runtime environment. People developing on Win to Android or on Win to Meego used to deal with this.
[09:32] <didrocks> bzoltan: on Win to Android is closer to what want, so I wouldn't use that as an example
[09:32] <bzoltan> didrocks: +1 We need to hide the confusing parts. I think it is possible.... even with Kits :)
[09:33] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: http://paste.ubuntu.com/11689200/ and https://i.imgur.com/bgkHFqS.jpg
[09:33] <bzoltan> didrocks:  because on Win to Android you use an IDE what was made for android ... if we would have chance to make our own IDE I am sure we could do the same. the trouble here is that we save massive work by using QtC what is made for other platforms too
[09:35] <bzoltan> didrocks: seb128: not to mention that Android Studio has a huuuuuge advantage... they do not need to figure out anything about toolchain and arch because they just know it. QtC does not, so we need an abstraction for that. Crap it is.. but we can not change that.
[09:35] <didrocks> bzoltan: I was just bouncing on your "people developing on Win to Android […] used to deal with this"
[09:35] <bzoltan> didrocks: seb128: so indeed having our own toolchain would make certain things simpler
[09:36] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: ugh
[09:36] <bzoltan> didrocks:  bouncing onthat is accepted :) point there
[09:36] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: what ubuntu version you running?
[09:36] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: 15.04 on the development desktop
[09:36] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: and that happens for all your apps or just that specific one?
[09:37] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: excellent question, it just happened for the first time. Let me check.
[09:38] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: and you do use the SDK ppa?
[09:41] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: ...okay, I was using the SDK PPA for utopic on vivid
[09:41] <sturmflut2> shame on me
[09:42] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: oh it still had "utopic" in it? :D
[09:42] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: you need the ppa enabled on vivid too, just with the right version of course
[09:42] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: apparently forgot to check all my PPAs when updating to vivid
[09:43] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: normally they should be disabled automatically
[09:43] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: Thanks for the hint, I would have never found out
[09:43] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: lets see if it helps ;)
[09:44] <sturmflut2> zbenjamin: It does, all arrows green now
[09:44] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: \o/
[09:44] <zbenjamin> sturmflut2: that was easy :D
[09:52] <popey> \o/
[09:53] <karni> zbenjamin: I thought you'd be able to answer that question - what are disadvantages of developing an app with Qt quick controls VS Ubuntu components (besides 1. UC are more touch oriented 2. UC have Ubuntu look)
[09:54] <zbenjamin> karni: well if you do not care about native look and feel, you probably won't have disadvantages. But note that you can mix both worlds
[09:55] <zbenjamin> karni: just use namespaced imports
[09:55] <zbenjamin> karni: and i'm not sure if quick controls are officially supported
[09:56] <zbenjamin> karni: also on the QCS we heard that they work on QtQuickControls2 ... so not sure how much love the first version will receive now
[09:56] <karni> zbenjamin: I see
[09:57] <karni> zbenjamin: The question comes from the fact that I was interested in more customized application looks from our Ubuntu UI toolkit
[09:57] <karni> and was wondeing if 1) it's possible 2) anyone has already done that
[09:57] <karni> I guess the important question is then - whether quick controls are officially supported
[09:58] <karni> zbenjamin: don't our Ubuntu Components build on qt quick controls?
[09:58] <karni> I thought most of Ubuntu Components are actually relatively simple wrappers
[10:05] <karni> zbenjamin: oh, or rather - wrappers around QtQuick, not QtQuick.Controls
[10:06] <nik90> karni: I believe both qtquick controls and ubuntu-sdk components were developed at the same time in parallel..so for instance the SDK's Checkbox is different from the QtQuick Controls Checkbox component.
[10:06] <nik90> karni: however reading through https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/blog/2015/06/08/sprinting-convergence/, it seems it is planned to stay close to upstream where possible
[10:06] <karni> nik90: I see. Do you know of examples of apps using qt quick controls, running on Ubuntu phone?
[10:07] <karni> nik90: I'll admit I've only run over that article. I'll give it more thorough read, thank you :)
[10:07] <nik90> karni: I remember a long time trying to use the upstream qtquick controls in my app and it seems to work..although I cannot remember if it worked on the phone or on my desktop
[10:07] <nik90> long time ago*
[10:08] <karni> nik90: I see, thanks :)
[10:08] <nik90> yw
[10:08] <avim> hi. someone can help me what to do with package with depends? i want to create package for ubuntu phone. and click in the click package there is nothing about depends...
[10:09] <popey> avim: you bundle the binaries into the package
[10:11] <avim> even if the lib that i have depend on it is on ubuntu official repo?
[10:12] <popey> yes
[10:12] <popey> click packages have no deps
[10:12] <popey> other than the framework which we provide on the device
[10:13] <popey> e.g. neverball in the store has a build of libsdl2 inside the package, so does neverputt, so a user who installs both gets two copies of libsdl2
[10:13] <avim> ok. thank you.
[10:13] <popey> np
[11:05] <dholbach> davidcalle, mhall119: I just got the following when trying to comment on a developer.u.c blog post: Forbidden (403)
[11:05] <dholbach> CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
[11:05] <dholbach> More information is available with DEBUG=True.
[11:07] <dholbach> in any case, I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-ubuntu-com/+bug/1463779
[11:07] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1463779 in Ubuntu Developer Portal "Commenting on blog posts is broken" [Undecided,New]
[11:09] <davidcalle> dholbach :(
[11:09]  * davidcalle -> lunch
=== MacSlow is now known as MacSlow|lunch
[11:55] <mivoligo> rpadovani: ping
=== _salem is now known as salem_
=== MacSlow|lunch is now known as MacSlow
=== chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk
[18:00] <mariog> hey....I just followed the tutorial on adding settings to a scope: https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/scopes/tutorials/adding-settings-to-your-scope/
[18:01] <mariog> by the way, after following these instructions, my scope does not have any settings and the "CONFIG EMPTY" error message is displayed when running it
[18:01] <mariog> can anybody help me?
[19:27] <popey> renatu: could you take a look at this please https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtpim-opensource-src/+bug/1462989
[19:27] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1462989 in qtpim-opensource-src (Ubuntu) "containsItems returned wrong value when checking all day event" [Undecided,New]
[19:28] <popey> renatu: may help  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-calendar-app/+bug/1437305
[19:28] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1437305 in qtorganizer5-eds (Ubuntu) "Wrong date day icon display and one day before events day in month view" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[19:28] <popey> renatu: also, any progress on https://bugs.launchpad.net/sync-monitor/+bug/1339016 ?
[19:28] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1339016 in syncevolution (Ubuntu RTM) "Initial sync of the calendar takes a prohibitive amount of time" [Critical,In progress]
[19:31] <renatu> popey, the last one was released a long time ago
[20:17] <renatu> popey, could you check if this fix solves the problem: https://code.launchpad.net/~renatofilho/qtorganizer5-eds/fix-1437305/+merge/261666
=== salem_ is now known as _salem
=== ahoneybun_ is now known as ahoneybun