On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:56:34PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:10:15PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> > Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:37:35PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> > >> In this case, should I leave qtscintilla-qt4 as a public package in qt.scm
> > >> instead of maths.scm as Leo suggested?
> > >
> > > since it is used for only one package and relies on the deprecated qt@4,
> > > I would leave it private, regardless its name.
> > 
> > It seems that there are conflicting opinions here. :)
> > If no one minds, I can support this feature out-of-tree until GNU Octave
> > updates its UI to use Qt 5.
> > 
> > Opinions?
> 
> I don't think we need to keep it out of tree.
> 
> I agree with Andreas that we should discourage use of Qt 4, but I don't
> think we should not use it at all, or else I would have suggested
> removing all Qt 4 related software.
> 
> I think that if there is a reason to export the package at this time, we
> should do so. Otherwise, I think we should keep it private. If we need
> to export it later, we can.
> 
> Efraim, do you have a use for a Qt 4 variant of qscintilla?

Nope.


-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted