On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:56:34PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > 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?
Nope. -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
Description: PGP signature