Hi! With my Debian Qt maintainer hat on: I want to stress everything that Thiago mentioned in the cited below mail. Rebuilding the entire Qt world in a distribution is a tremendous huge task. I'm afraid I can't express the pain it is specially for libraries as popular as Qt... try it yourself maybe? Change the SONAME and restart building Debian unstable. Don't forget that that means the whole set of architectures too. Oh, and that needs to be as fast as possible, Qt is so central in many things that other stuff will end up waiting for it to finish. Example: poppler can't be updated in the meantime. And that's just poppler.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:11, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: [snip] > > In any case, I don't think either use case is an absolute reason for keeping > > BC. > > It's a choice. > > But I warn against choosing to break too often. > > A few years ago, Gtk threatened to do that starting with Gtk 4: > https://lwn.net/Articles/691131/ > https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/13/gtk-4-0-is-not-gtk-4/ > https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/14/gtk-5-0-is-not-gtk-5/ > > They changed their minds. When those news arose we Qt maintainers felt really really happy that we maintain Qt, and that's because of BC. Qt is already too big to maintain, especially if you are not being paid for it. Break BC often and finding distro maintainers will be the hardest thing to do. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
