Re: QT needs new maintainer(s), or at least an NMU
On June 1, 2004 13:19, Martin Loschwitz wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, KDE 3.2 is still not officially certified for
> running with Qt 3.3, is it? Anyway, Qt 3.3 should not go into Sarge, I
We could always use an expert Debian opinion, but everyone else (i.e.
Gentoo, Fedora, SuSE, and Mandrake cooker, don't know about 10.0) is
shipping 3.3, so it can't be that bad. There were a few quirks with KDE
3.2 + QT 3.3, but QT 3.3.2 fixed many bugs, and KDE 3.2.x has further
fixed some of the issues people have encountered with the new QT.
> The thing is -- I was quite satisfied with Qt as it was (and still is),
> it is just that circumstances have changed (e.g. the new xcursor stuff
> needs updating the package ...)
Yet many, many other people seem dissatisfied with the packages. As
maintainer, you should strive to serve the needs of users, or at least
communicate with them and explain why the (perceived) issues aren't being
> I didn't retire from maintaining them
One could be forgiven for having gotten that impression.
> I would, however, love to see
> some people help me with it (specially since Ralf is on long-term-VAC
> at the moment ...)
I'm sure there are people willing to help, so this is good to hear.
> And no, Qt is not team-maintained and never has been.
You're right. I thought I'd checked that, sorry.
> As maintainer of the Qt packages, I hereby officially deny an NMU or
> something similar, i.e. an upload not done by me, until things get
> clear again.
What would you like clarified? Whether KDE is OK with QT 3.3? Maybe calc
can give us his opinion on this. In any case, why didn't you seek clarity
> However, as already said -- I would love to see people help me; I am
> thinking of doing a Qt 3.2.x upload to fix at least one of the two
> outstanding release critical bugs. Additionally, re-enabling STL is
> something one might take into consideration.
That would be great.