Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: > 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.
To get this right: qscintilla will be defined publicly in qt.scm, qscintilla-qt4 will be defined privately in maths.scm (how do I inherit a package from another module?), and Octave will include qscintilla-qt4 and qt-4 as inputs.
Description: PGP signature