Hi all,
as I was mentioned in this discussion...
On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 10:27:18AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I would very much prefer (a). Now, as you said, timing is important
> here. Do we need a pass through NEW? If that's the case then that will
> need to happen after the next transition, if time allows it. If it can
> be easily added to the existing packaging without the need of NEW then
> we might add it right now.
>
> Last time you did the packaging with DMitry, so I'm kind of lost here.
...I would also prefer if Qt 6 used a similar setup to Qt 5. This way the
transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 would be more transparent for the reverse
dependencies. E.g. they will only need to replace ${DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE}-qmake
with ${DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE}-qmake6.
--
Dmitry Shachnev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature