Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:37:35PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> In this case, should I leave qtscintilla-qt4 as a public package in qt.scm >> instead of maths.scm as Leo suggested? > > since it is used for only one package and relies on the deprecated qt@4, > I would leave it private, regardless its name. > > Andreas
It seems that there are conflicting opinions here. :) If no one minds, I can support this feature out-of-tree until GNU Octave updates its UI to use Qt 5. Opinions?
Description: PGP signature