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?
Description: PGP signature