On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 19:38, Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:51:34AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 03:12:40PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > > Still, I am wondering why we insist on supporting Qt4 for 2.4.0 > (especially > > > > considering that we will have to continue this game for 2+ years > after > > > > that). > > > > > > That was decided when we planned to release 2.4 at the end of 2019. > > > It's clear we won't be able to push 2.4 even for next debian stable > > > and I think we can relax Qt4 support and move on. > > > > We had a conversation in July of this year. The following archive does > > not seem to show some messages in the thread: > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg217704.html > > > > Thibaut had some opinions, so it would be nice to hear from him first > > before we decide to go forward with requiring Qt5. > > > > I paste Thibaut's message from 14 July 2022 here: > > > > As 2.4 is roughly around the corner, maybe it's best to keep Qt 4 > > compatibility, minus bogus behaviours of Qt 4 that are fixed with Qt > 5: in > > this sense, compatibility would just be "ensure that LyX builds" (it > should > > work roughly well enough) and ignoring bug reports only for Qt 4. Once > > release, we can announce that Qt 5.9 or even 5.15, for instance, will > be > > the lowest tested version for LyX 2.5. > > > > I don't think it's good practice to change this kind of compatibility > > without prior warning for packagers. Otherwise, I'm 100% ok with > dropping > > support for really old versions that have not been supported for a long > > while. I wouldn't be ok with saying that Qt 5.0 is the minimum, given > the > > large amount of changes in Qt since 2012 (10 years ago). > > > > By the way, I agree that 5.0 would not be the minimum. I forget, but we > > need something like 5.4. I think we might have this documented > > somewhere. If not, I can figure this out. > > Thibaut? > Well, if barely anyone tests with Qt 4 (I'm only using Qt 5.15), it's already unsupported in practice and making the necessary changes would be (1) cumbersome and (2) a waste of resources (little gain in supporting versions of software that only belongs to a museum -- it's not as old as 486 <https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-i486-Linux-Possible-Drop>, though).
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
