On lundi 7 août 2017 18:25:35 CEST Rex Dieter wrote: > David Faure wrote: > >> > Isn't it an option to leave it in, at version 5.36, rather than > >> > removing it completely ? > >> > >> In the short-term, yes. > >> > >> Long term, I'm not willing to ship (and support) this if it's not > >> supported upstream either (where bugs are usually fixed in newer > >> releases). > > > > I thought you said that long term you were looking at upgrading to Qt > > 5.9... > > I may or may not be successful. > > > In any case I'm not sure why Qt's promise to maintain 5.6 for 3 years > > means that all Qt-based libraries must promise the same. > > <shrug>, you asked for feedback, and I gave it. I'm just spelling out the > results of implementing the change now => dropping support for RHEL7
That's unfortunate, which is why I'm still trying to discuss and find solutions with you, but we just can't support Qt 5.6 forever. Does RHEL have additional optional repos that allow upgrading (e.g. to a newer Qt), like OpenSuSE has? Then it wouldn't be "completely dropping out of RHEL7", but "requiring an extra repo". Not as good as a core package, but still a possibility for those who might need it. > It's up to you if you choose to implement changes that means some downstream > distros cannot (reasonably) use your (latest/supported) software anymore. s/some/one/. Everyone else said OK, so I went ahead. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
