On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 08:02:20 ART Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2016 18:12:13 PST Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > > I wonder what was the reason for OpenSUSE to have this change — I could > > not > > find a relevant changelog entry. Why cannot they just rebuild all packages > > using private headers for every Qt release, like we do? > > My guess is that they can and they do. > > But the extra versioning is a further safety check: if something was missed > in the update, like for example some code compiled by the user (regardless > of use of package management), it will necessarily stop working.
Truth, although we haven't received any complaints about this so far. > And if it > used package management, it will not install, or it will prevent upgrade > until it is provided in a new version. That's already covered at least in our case. So from my side: +1 to making QPA symbols marked as private, 0 (tending to -1 because it will make us work ;-) ) to add minor [.patch] to private symbols versioning. Worst case scenario we will have to patch it out for some time until we find a way to automate the process for our tools. That would leave us with some time of non-compatibility but should get fixed for the next stable release that includes Qt > 5.8. -- 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
