Hi! On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 11:31, Jean-Michaël Celerier <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If existing package of application cannot be rebuilt from source with > > updated > Qt version, it's a sure no-go for distibution. Either Qt update will be > blocked, or > application will be thrown away (or application will be somehow patched by > other > people, without you even knowing about that) > > - People nowadays will just use the flatpak / appimage / snap / whatever > version which will be much more up-to date than Debian Stable's Qt 5.7 (!) or > Ubuntu LTS & CentOS 's Qt 5.9 anyways.
You will be amazed on the amount of people that depend upon a distibution stability and will certainly *not* use flatpaks. microelectronic CADs setup is just a tiny example of that, and I think many other examples are around. Distributions exist and don't dissapear for a reason, even if a number of people use flatpaks or whatever. > - boost has the exact same ABI stability issue (e.g. no ABI / API stability > guarantees at all) and yet distros seem to manage all the C++ software which > uses it without much problems. Boost is **exactly** the best example of why Qt should not go the same route. It's totally problematic to have more than two stacks around, and we **will** have Qt5 and Qt6 for a long time. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
