Hi Lisandro! On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 13:48 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > Upstream has just required us for a proof that Qt 6 is being in use in your > ports: > > <https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/437349/comments/ > cb357b65_46e7edcd> > > If the outcome is "not working" or "not really being in use" they will > probably remove support from upstream's source code. > > What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image of > Qt 6 working on them?
I'm not sure what they consider »support«, there are some pre-processor definitions in the code which hardly can be considered a maintenance burden. Or are they going to start adding large chunks of architecture-specific code? Not sure I understand the motivation behind the question. Besides that, the problem with Qt in this context are the large number of reverse dependencies. If you break Qt on a given architecture, you will also break packages such as Subversion and Git since they have transitive dependencies on Qt. I don't think intentionally breaking Qt on a given architecture just because a maintainer doesn't want to »maintain« a few lines of pre-processor code for it can be considered good spirit. Why would they do that? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
