Sorry, forgot to copy the list. On 12/28, ma...@masonhock.com wrote: > On 12/28, Urs Liska wrote: > > Ubuntu 16.04 is a LTS release with (IIRC) five years of support. So it > > is not unreasonable for someone to use it. However, we (Frescobaldi) > > seem to have been hit by this five-year term since we're dealing with > > a change in the Qt framework that has phased out support for a module > > over (again, IIRC) 2-3 years. So all *current* Linux distributions > > ship with a Qt version that only includes QtWebEngine and not QtWebKit > > anymore. There has been a range of Qt versions including both. > > > > The question is whether a project like Frescobaldi can reasonably be > > expected to actively support such an old OS, even if it's LTS. I'd > > assume that lTS guarantees you security patches but not that every new > > software will run. > > Right, LTS means continued security updates (only for packages in the > Main repository, in Ubuntu's case), but three years into the release > users cannot expect to run bleeding edge software without ever running > into dependency issues. It seems that most developers make an effort to > support Ubuntu's current stable release (although Kdenlive does not, > support Bionic, also due to Qt dependencies), but it is common for large > projects not to support the previous stable release. > > > Before upgrading to a newer OS it might be an option to use a current > > Qt/PyQt downloaded or compiled from somewhere. @Simon you could do us > > a huge favor by exploring that possibility and providing information > > about it for the Wiki. > > I have not tested this, but these PPAs[1] install newer versions of Qt > to /opt, so that they do not conflict with the version of Qt already on > the system. This may be sufficient for Frescobaldi. > > Mason > > [1] https://launchpad.net/~beineri
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature