On December 22, 2015 6:31:11 AM EST, Dmitry Shachnev <mity...@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38:41PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Digikam is notoriously difficult to package before final release due
>to
>> depending on unreleased library versions and/or embedded code copies.
> Not
>> packaging pre-release versions of Digikam is an eminently reasonable
>thing
>> to do.  This is particularly true right now when no one else was
>working on
>> it at all AFAICT.
>>
>> It's not entirely clear is we'll succeed in getting entirely rid of
>Qt4 this
>> cycle.  The thing we know for sure is going away is QtWebKit for Qt4.
>
>If nobody is developing a Qt 5.x version of Digikam, then maybe
>packaging the
>Qt 4.x version is OK. Otherwise I would rather not introduce any new Qt
>4.x
>packages to Debian (especially provided that the official support for
>Qt 4
>ended 3 days ago [1]).

It's not a new package.  It was just behind several releases and the question 
was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5 version.

In standard Debian style the person doing the work decided (well IMO) and we 
who didn't do the work ought to lay off the second guessing.

Scott K

-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Reply via email to