On December 21, 2015 09:18:29 PM Adam Majer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:49:34PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > I am aware of 5.x betas.  I hesitate to use them right now because of the
> > "beta" status.  The announcement post itself [1] says "This version is for
> > testing purposes. It’s not currently advised to use it in production."
> > 
> > Maybe this is overcautious?  Opinions welcome.
> I think this is overcautious. Qt 4 is to be removed from Debian so
> removing dependencies on Qt 4 is preferred to adding new ones.

Well, yes: all things being equal, I'd agree it is folly to create new Qt4 

However, the question I am asking is about the quality of DigiKam "beta 5.x" 
vis-a-vis "stable 4.x".  I don't know that these are equal in quality.  The 
note from the DigiKam maintainers suggests they are not. 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply via email to