Note: readding p-k-t@ and debian-ports@... On Tuesday 05 November 2013 19:22:30 peter green wrote: > Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > I really don't understand where Canonical gets in here. > > If qreal is float on armhf and key software fails in that configuration > then canonical have to fix it (ubuntu are usually either very close to > or ahead of debian on key software) > > Afaict neither armel or sh4 has anything like the level of "corporate > support" that armhf gets from canonical. Ah, you mean that armhf hardware has more support from the Ubuntu side. Anyway, we need to make this decision within Debian. > > I also don't understand what you mean with "ports that stick with qreal". > > qreal is a typedef which type is defined at compile time. Did you meant > > float? > Sorry I meant ports that stick with defining qreal as float. I see, in this case only those ports will have to deal with that (as it has been with Qt4) > > I have not participated in any way in upstream's decision nor I have the > > power to overcome them. Anyway, we are giving the choice of a > > compile-time parameter to better suit our needs on purpose. > > The problem is this is going to have a massive affect on ABI which implies: > > 1: changing the descision later would mean a soname change The reason why I took the time to create this thread is because this is the time to take that decision, and we Qt maintainers will not change it later because that would mean a soname change. > 2: if debian make a different descision from other distros we will be > binary incompatible. Sune just made me rmember LSB. Yes, indeed, we need to try and coordinate with other distros. How this is normally done? Kinds regards, Lisandro. -- Un viejo proverbio de El.Machi dice que la memoria es como las papas fritas... ¡nunca sobran! Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.