ltoscano added a comment.
In D23001#531057 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D23001#531057>, @gengisdave wrote: > I personally think that the original repo could be used, my perfect solution would be a scratch repo. But (this is a big but) the target of this set of patches shouldn't be a normal user but a distro packager, and we must show big warning saying that this does not mean that the developing is active and only trivial patches for critical bugs could be backported; sometime a single-line patch cannot be backported because all the logic around was changed, or the backport does not fix at all or even worse. Also, because the development is closed, no bugs should be reported because the first answer would be "can you try on a newer version?". But distro packagers are not going to use that branch: all (de facto, but see below) distributions switched to the Qt 5 version of Krusader long ago: https://repology.org/project/krusader/versions Anything >= 2.5 is Frameworks- and Qt 5-based. > While some devs are planning the arrival of qt6/kf6, I would know why a distro is sticked to qt4/kde4 (and I use Slackware), I would check if there is a planned switch to plasma or if the distro packaging is abandoned or if exists a newer release of the distro. Krusader is not related to Plasma at all. Slackware is probably the only historical distribution which hasn't switched to Qt5 yet, and in that case I'd suggest the usage of the ktown repository from https://alien.slackbook.org ; and to be honest them using Qt 4 is not a reason to keep that old branch alive. Let me reiterate this: Qt 4 is gone, and it has been gone for a good while. REPOSITORY R167 Krusader REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D23001 To: asensi, #krusader Cc: gengisdave, nmel, ltoscano, kde-doc-english, #krusader, gennad, fbampaloukas, mjanczara, miroslavm, skadinna, janlepper, abika, martinkostolny, asensi, andreaska
