On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:52:40 Paul Olav Tvete wrote: > On Friday 15 February 2013 11:43:10 Stephen Kelly wrote: > > On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:28:32 Timo Jyrinki wrote: > > > At least qtpim, qtsystems, qtconnectivity, qtfeedback > > > and qtwayland will follow later, and I'll be filing change proposals > > > for them at that time as part of the process. > > > > I don't know why you're packaging those. > > > > You understand that they are not 'part of Qt 5', right? > > > > And you understand that they are not stable in any way and their API will > > likely change, and they will not be part of Qt 5.1, and they may never be > > part of a Qt release? > > AFAIK, QtWayland is planned to be part of Qt 5.1. (Parts of the module will > be marked as experimental.)
It doesn't seem to be in the list Lars posted a few days ago. If you want it in 5.1, you should maybe raise that. Regarding the packages, my concern is labelling and (packagers and users of the packages) mistakenly thinking that something is 'part of Qt 5'. The ones which are not part of Qt 5 should not imply that they are. If the qtbase tarball is made into the libqtbase5 package, the qtpim tarball should not be made into libqtpim5, and any qt5 metapackage should not depend on the qtpim package. The reason is that those modules are not 'part of Qt 5'. They are no more a part of Qt than qlogger, to take a random playground example. The repos can't be renamed to have 'playground' in the name, but those modules are not really any different to playground modules. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <stephen.ke...@kdab.com> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
