Hi! With my Debian maintainer hat on: On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 05:21, Manuel Bergler <bergle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am Sa., 1. Juni 2019 um 23:35 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kofler > <kevin.kof...@chello.at>: >> >> Volker Hilsheimer wrote: [snip] >> Your proposal to break ABI at every 6.x minor release would be an absolute >> nightmare for distributors. It would no longer be possible to upgrade stable >> releases of a distribution like Fedora to a new Qt as is frequently done >> now. Rolling-release distros would also suffer, having to go through a >> coordinated mass transition each time. And third-party PPAs upgrading Qt for >> a stable distribution would also become harder to offer (because they would >> have to rebuild ALL Qt-using packages, not just those (ab)using private >> APIs). I do not see how this would be an improvement over the current >> situation at all.
Same goes for Debian, Ubuntu and (¿the vast majority?) of distros out there. > There are at least two ways Qt and/or distributors could deal with ABI > incompatible changes in minor releases of Qt 6. First of all, Qt itself could > make use of inline namespaces to ship several version of the same classes in > the same binary while keeping source compatibility. And if Qt doesn't want to > go that route because of maintenance overhead then the distributors > themselves could decide not to ship just a single version of Qt, but rather > have multiple versions side-by-side using the custom namespace and library > infix option already provided by Qt. In both cases it's a great burden. In one case in the Qt developers's shoulders (much worse that keeping API/ABI stability) and in the other in maintainers's shoulders. On the the **great** things Qt provides is actually API/ABI stability. I do understand that maybe it's not seen by many, but indeed is one of it's major strengths. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
