From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Staying on top of Qt security Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:53:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20160222195339.GD29652@solar> References: <20160214200143.GA19744@jasmine> <20160218204349.GA4179@solar> <87egc9pr2p.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20160218225938.GA29487@solar> <8760xjw81o.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20160221072837.GA16855@jasmine> <87ziuuarix.fsf@dustycloud.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXwYH-0001At-Oa for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:53:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXwYD-0000cm-OE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:53:49 -0500 Received: from mailrelay7.public.one.com ([91.198.169.215]:19184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXwYD-0000cg-8h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:53:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ziuuarix.fsf@dustycloud.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Christopher Allan Webber Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org 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