On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:00 PM Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 6:57 AM Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2025-11-27, Albert Astals Cid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I feel we are not fullfilling this promise nowadays since [almost] no > > > developer runs such old Qt and we don't have CI for it either so things > > > that > > > don't compile with older versions sneak up. Increasing the promise to yet > > > another older Qt without extra CI for it feels like it would be an empty > > > promise. > > > > I've been testing it so far with 6.7 with non-frequent intervals. > > Occasionally a patch was needed. > > > > (Note: I only tested what's needed for Okular & Kleopatra, not the 'full > > frameworks', but it get pretty good around) > > > > It's been appreciated by some third-party ISVs, since they go out of > their way to pay for Qt LTS and have considered using some KDE > Frameworks (at least when I inform them of the existence of the > Frameworks), so I would prefer if we could if reasonably possible.
It would be useful if whoever appreciates us bending backwards to accommodate these needs show some kind of appreciation. Our dependency management cannot be based on our anxious attachment tendencies. For what it's worth, Qt's LTS as they are nowadays are of very little use for FOSS projects like ours. Aleix
