On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:10:15PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
> > 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.
> 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?

I don't think we need to keep it out of tree.

I agree with Andreas that we should discourage use of Qt 4, but I don't
think we should not use it at all, or else I would have suggested
removing all Qt 4 related software.

I think that if there is a reason to export the package at this time, we
should do so. Otherwise, I think we should keep it private. If we need
to export it later, we can.

Efraim, do you have a use for a Qt 4 variant of qscintilla?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to