On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:15:23 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametz...@bebt.de> wrote: > On 2024-06-17 Ingo Klöcker <kloec...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:33:46 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametz...@bebt.de> > > wrote: > > > On 2024-06-17 Ingo Klöcker <kloec...@kde.org> wrote: > > What reverse dependencies? > > These: > ametzler@argenau:~$ grep-aptavail -FDepends libgpgmepp6t64 -sSource | sort > -u
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:22:48 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametz...@bebt.de> wrote: > [...] > > There was a copy and paste error. > ametzler@argenau:~$ grep-aptavail -FDepends libqgpgme15t64 -sSource | sort > -u > Source: gpgme1.0 (1.18.0-4.1) > Source: kdepim-addons (22.12.3-1) > Source: kf5-messagelib (4:22.12.3-2.1) > Source: kget (4:23.08.3-1) > Source: kleopatra (4:22.12.3-2) > Source: kmail (4:22.12.3-1) > Source: kmail-account-wizard (4:22.12.3-1) > Source: libkf5libkleo (4:22.12.3-1) > Source: libkf5mailcommon (4:22.12.3-1) > Source: plasma-pass (1.2.2-1) All of those will be fine because they use CMake. > > One benefit is that packagers don't have to wonder anymore whether the > > headers are/stay identical. We wouldn't even have this conversation if > > we had used separate folders since we added support for Qt 6. > > We would not have this conversation yes. However if the headers > continued to stay identical I'd probably think 5 years from now that was > not the most efficient design. And I might end up with using symlinks to > avoid duplicate data warning. So I think it is good thing we are having > this conversation. :-) If your take was "Yes, they are identical /now/ > but probably will not stay that way" a split right now avoids later > pain. It's likely that we'll start adding new headers only for Qt 6 once we stop doing feature releases of a Qt 5 based Kleopatra. So, yes, they are identical /now/ but most likely will not stay that way. Regards, Ingo
