> On Nov 17, 2019, at 8:09 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday November 17 2019 07:03:50 Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference, but the consensus was
>> essentially:
>> if the newest version works on all the platforms that the LTS does, then
>> there is no reason to keep another Qt port around.
>
> Hmmm, I think there is. There will probably come a time when the current
> version drops support for OS versions, which will then depend on the LTS
> version for bug fixes and security backports. If the timeline is going to be
> the same as with 5.9LTS that means the OS versions concerned could be blocked
> on 5.13 and/or 5.14 .
I am very sorry I cannot find the reference because this is the same argument I
made.
(I cannot remember if this discussion was on the mailing list, the trac, or the
GitHub comments.)
The rebuttal was that we can port any such changes to the newer Qt.
Just to be clear, this was not my argument, but I went with the consensus.
>
>>> And in general, suppose it did exist: how good is the support for
>>> installing port:qt51x manually and then getting the corresponding
>>> dependencies on the correct, corresponding Qt version?
>>
>> If a user, for example, on macOS Mojave installs qt511-qtbase, then all
>> ports that use the qt5 PG should correctly recognize it is a valid Qt5 port
>> that satisfies the dependencies.
>
> Yes, but will they also pull in qt511-qtwhatever automatically? I know I must
> have given this thought for my own Qt5 ports, but never tested it thoroughly
> as far as I can remember.
Yes, it should pull in all of the necessary dependencies like qt511-qtwhatever.
> BTW, I'm getting reports of Qt 5.9.8 build errors on the latest 10.15 OS
> version, errors which suggest C++ dialect issues despite the use of
> `-std=c++11z`.
>
> R.
Thank you for the heads-up.
-Marcus
