Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> I also dislike this change. As Lisandro says, we do not want it in Debian
> (because we keep track of versions ourselves in the symbols file, and when
> the versions are in the symbols themselves they are just useless noise for
> us). And as you say, you do not want distrib
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 08:02:20 ART Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2016 18:12:13 PST Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> > I wonder what was the reason for OpenSUSE to have this change — I could
> > not
> > find a relevant changelog entry. Why cannot they just rebuild
On quarta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2016 18:12:13 PST Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> I wonder what was the reason for OpenSUSE to have this change — I could not
> find a relevant changelog entry. Why cannot they just rebuild all packages
> using private headers for every Qt release, like we do?
My guess i
Hi Thiago,
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:26:41PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So I think it's not a good idea to apply the SUSE patch as-is. The QPA part
> makes sense, though.
I also dislike this change. As Lisandro says, we do not want it in Debian
(because we keep track of versions ourselves
On martes, 6 de diciembre de 2016 18:18:35 ART Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em quarta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2016, às 02:23:15 PST, Kevin Kofler
escreveu:
> > > I think I had thought of that when I originally came up with the idea,
> > > but
> > > discarded it. I know I don't want it in developer bui
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 02:23:15 ART Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
[snip]
> > I wonder: do we want a different ELF version for the QPA bits, other than
> > Qt_5_PRIVATE_API?
>
> IMHO, we want a versioned one, but in both cases. Distinguishing between QPA
> and other pr
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:53:37PM +0100, Gunnar Roth wrote:
> >Possibly pull every now and again in there. If you need to be in the bleeding
> >edge, git submodule update is the wrong tool.
>
> So what is the right tool?
>
init-repository -f --branch
___
