Hi! El mar., 28 ene. 2020 10:46, Bogdan Vatra <bogdan.va...@kdab.com> escribió:
> În ziua de marți, 28 ianuarie 2020, la 15:26:34 EET, Lisandro Damián > Nicanor > Pérez Meyer a scris: > > Hi! > > > > On 20/01/27 06:18, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:48:17 PST Alexander Akulich > wrote: > > > > I would expect a significant negative effect on the quality of Qt > > > > shipped in Linux distributions and thus negative effect on the > > > > Qt-based applications and Qt reputation. > > > > > > That is debatable since most Linux distributions do not align with the > Qt > > > LTSes. Kevin's question of 5.15 support while 6.0 is coming is valid, > but > > > for all other LTSes, open source Linux distros seem to choose whichever > > > version was latest at the time they reached feature-freeze. > > > > > > Current versions in: > > > * Debian stable: 5.11.3 > > > * Debian oldstable: 5.7.1 > > > * Fedora 31: 5.12.5 > > > * Fedora 30: 5.12.1 > > > * Fedora 29: 5.11.1 > > > * Fedora 28: 5.10.1 > > > * CentOS 8.1: 5.11.1 > > > * openSUSE 15: 5.9.4 (15.1 now has 5.9.7) > > > * openSUSE 42.3: 5.6.2 > > > * openSUSE 42.2: 5.6.1 > > > * (K)Ubuntu 19.10: 5.12.4 > > > * Ubuntu 18.10: 5.11.1 > > > * Ubuntu 18.04 LTS: 5.9.5 > > > * Ubuntu 16.04 LTS: 5.5.1 > > > * KDE Neon: 5.13.2 > > > * Manjaro 18.1.0: 5.13.0 > > > > > > There are a couple of alignments with Qt LTS above but they could be > > > coincidences. openSUSE 15 was released around 6 months after the 5.10.0 > > > release (and less than 3 after 5.10.1, which is when they seem to make > > > upgrades) and Ubuntu 18.04 was a month earlier than openSUSE. I thought > > > Fedora 31 was trying to align, but then I went to search for the > current > > > version and F32-in-development has already upgraded out of the LTS to > > > 5.13.2. > > > > > > Ubuntu snapshot for 20.04 is on 5.12.6. That seems to me to be the only > > > legitimate, intentional alignment on a Qt LTS. If that's confirmed, it > > > would be the first, after 4 years of having LTS releases. > > > > I confirm that because one of their maintainers is also a team mate in > > Debian, read below. > > > > > So it's completely understandable to have concluded that the LTS > releases > > > weren't useful to Linux distributions. > > > > With my Debian maintainer hat on: exactly as Thiago said. But with a > note: > > we have always tried to ship a version as close to an LTS as we could > (and > > I know the same goes for Ubuntu, as one of my team mates prepares > Ubuntu's > > Qt packages from what we do in Debian). This is because it's normally > > easier to get the patches from a LTS. But the point remains the same. > > What happens when Qt 6 will be out and TQC closes 5.15 branch and you'll > have to maintain Qt 5 for a couple of years without any bug fixes from > upstream? As I pointed in my previous mails, the major risk here is that > there > will be a Qt 5.15 fork after the 5.15 branch is closed ... and nobody wins > from such a scenario. > They (QtC) get this solved or they will loose lots of open source traction. >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development