Re: Staying on top of Qt security

[Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>]

Sorry, Chris, that I bothered you with the state of pumpa; I was so convinced
that you were the packager that I did not even check! I suppose that I have
read too many of your blog posts to planet gnu; whenever I hear "federation"
or "pumpsomething" now, I think of you.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:42:43AM -0800, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Leo Famulari writes:
> > Apparently QJson's master branch has supported Qt-5 for some time, so I
> > asked the maintainers if that is true, and if they plan to issue a new
> > release [0]. We could try packaging from git.
> > https://github.com/flavio/qjson/issues/49

Thanks for the initiative!

> Sounds good.  If they don't make a new release, I think packaging from
> git is the best option.

I am not a big fan of packaging from non-release versions. Maybe you could
convince upstream that this is enough of an exciting change to make a release,
Leo? In the end, it is probably more interesting and important to get rid
of Qt-4 than to not package from git. But there are still other packages
requiring Qt-4. Maybe we should wait a bit until their number is more reduced, 
and then take a joint decision for the remaining ones.

Andreas