Andreas Enge <> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to