On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 07:56:03PM +0000, Sam James wrote: > Zoltan Puskas <zol...@sinustrom.info> writes: > > >> > >> So, removing Qt5 will break computers of many users, including my computer. > >> In the course of many years of existence of Qt5 a large number of useful > >> programs have been created; not all of them have been ported to Qt6. Are we > >> going to throw away all this wealth? > >> > > > > I have to agree with Andrey here, the list contains quite a few items that > > are > > likely used by a lot of users and killing all these apps is going to be > > painful. > > > > Is there a timeline for killing QT5 completely or will just QT5 be stuck at > > the > > current version and patch level? > > > > I understand that QT5 is considered deprecated, but doesn't KDE project > > still > > maintain QT 5.15 for the time being? Can't we just keep that version? > > > > Even if we report bugs upstream, it may take time to port all these > > projects, > > especially the larger ones or if they are a single person project. > > We best get started now then, which is the purpose of Andreas' > email. This is the warning to start filing those bugs and asking > upstreams to port if not done already. Not that we're going to last-rite > such packages tomorrow.
Right, albeit can add that anything depending on qtwebengine:5 should hurry more than the rest. As asturm already noted it's going to break faster than the rest and nobody really wants to handle keeping that one working. Most users also don't want two qtwebengine on their systems. Qt5 base packages aren't the biggest worry even if we leave them semi-abandoned (not that qtcore isn't pretty quirky and already with a lot of small issues that will likely get worse), albeit it'd be nice to get to a few other Qt modules out of the equation as packages ideally get aggressively ported. -- ionen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
