David Faure wrote: > 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.
Policy for any official-ish addon repos is that they cannot replace any core packages (Qt5 is that). So, in general no. I see no alternatives for *now*. This is why I'd suggested waiting until we knew more, but I can also accept letting kf5 move forward and waiting/hoping for a better Qt5 solution on our end too. -- Rex