reopen 895386 thanks On 11 April 2018 at 06:41, Jürgen E. Fischer <j...@norbit.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess then Qt53DExtrasConfig.cmake (and more) should have also been removed.
Uups, yes, that's a bug, thanks for noticing! > I'd prefer to have the removed bits brought back over removing more (to avoid > having to include them upstream). Believe me I understand you, I was the one that discovered that part of what seemed to be stable public API was unstable public API. But sadly maintaining packages with unstable API is a nightmare, even more if it is public. Until that API becomes stable enough you might want to consider shipping it as 3rd party code. Once it's released you can remove it and require Qt >= version it ships as real stable API. If you do please be sure to put all Qt code inside a namespace, else distro tooling will believe that it's compiling against private parts of the API. And of course, please do tell upstream to make that API stable, or at very least ship it as private API. Thanks! -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
