Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:03:07PM +0000, ng0 wrote: >> These 3 patches enable us to have a functional pybitmessage version >> 0.6.1, released 2 days ago. >> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: Add python2-pyqt-4. >> * gnu/packages/qt.scm (python2-pyqt-4): New variable. > > if at all possible, we should not add packages that depend on Qt-4. > This one, in particular, would revert my following commit: > > commit 3297deedd1fcfd98641b01b477fad182f70cad61 > Author: Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> > Date: Mon Feb 22 21:33:29 2016 +0100 > > gnu: Remove python2-pyqt-4. > > * gnu/packages/qt.scm (python2-pyqt-4): Delete variable. It depends on Qt > 4, > which does not receive security updates any more. > > I had removed the package since I realised that nothing depended on it. > > The goal is to get rid of Qt-4 (and also of the monolithic Qt-5). > > Andreas >
Upstream is aware of this and told me they are working on a port towards qt5 and also python3. However there is no deadline. It is their choice. As I recently read there are people using Guix who are interested in using PyBitmessage. This package is usable, license fits, I find this block you create a bit harsh. I can understand it, but does it mean that you are against adding it at all because of qt4? -- ng0 For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org
