Note: readding p-k-t@ and debian-ports@...

On Tuesday 05 November 2013 19:22:30 peter green wrote:
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > I really don't understand where Canonical gets in here.
> 
> If qreal is float on armhf and key software fails in that configuration
> then canonical have to fix it (ubuntu are usually either very close to
> or ahead of debian on key software)
> 
> Afaict neither armel or sh4 has anything like the level of "corporate
> support" that armhf gets from canonical.

Ah, you mean that armhf hardware has more support from the Ubuntu side. 
Anyway, we need to make this decision within Debian.

> > I also don't understand what you mean with "ports that stick with qreal".
> > qreal is a typedef which type is defined at compile time. Did you meant
> > float?
> Sorry I meant ports that stick with defining qreal as float.

I see, in this case only those ports will have to deal with that (as it has 
been with Qt4)

> > I have not participated in any way in upstream's decision nor I have the
> > power to overcome them. Anyway, we are giving the choice of a
> > compile-time parameter to better suit our needs on purpose.
> 
> The problem is this is going to have a massive affect on ABI which implies:
> 
> 1: changing the descision later would mean a soname change

The reason why I took the time to create this thread is because this is the 
time to take that decision, and we Qt maintainers will not change it later 
because that would mean a soname change.

> 2: if debian make a different descision from other distros we will be
> binary incompatible.

Sune just made me rmember LSB. Yes, indeed, we need to try and coordinate with 
other distros. How this is normally done?

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

-- 
Un viejo proverbio de El.Machi dice que la memoria es como
las papas fritas... ¡nunca sobran!

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to