On Monday 30 June 2014 10:50:31 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Sunday 29 of June 2014 16:19:59 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > > That's of course only the binary installer ... I can't judge whether > > > e.g. > > > distributions would appreciate separate releases of QtWebEngine. > > > > No if it uses private headers. > > > > I currently need to rebuild on all arches gammaray, fcitx-qt and pyqt5 > > each > > time I upload a new point release for this exact problem [0]. I would > > really like to avoid adding new stuff to that list, as it is a real PITA. > > Hi, > > That sounds like an argument against any new releases ;-) Are gammaray and > pyqt5 depend on private headers of QtWebEngine? If not then they should be > fine. The detection you were talking about is in QtBase, so releasing a new > version of QtWebEngine would not affect these apps.
I'm sorry, I might have not been clear enough. No, pyqt5 and gammaray are not (AFAIU) related to QtWebEngine, I just used them as a current example of what we try to avoid. What I'm trying to point here is that we packagers do *not* like sources which uses private headers and are not released with the same schedule as Qt proper. It creates problems for us. Now if those sources are at least released with the same schedule we can push them all together and suffering is greatly reduced. But the real solution is to avoid using private headers at all. In that situation you can release whenever you want. -- "With great power comes great responsibility." Peter Parker's uncle. Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
