[Development] Qt modules missing mandatory LICENSE files

[Rutledge Shawn]

On 15 Feb 2013, at 11:43 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:

> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:28:32 Timo Jyrinki wrote:
>> At least qtpim, qtsystems, qtconnectivity, qtfeedback
>> and qtwayland will follow later, and I'll be filing change proposals
>> for them at that time as part of the process. 
> 
> I don't know why you're packaging those. 
> 
> You understand that they are not 'part of Qt 5', right? 
> 
> And you understand that they are not stable in any way and their API will 
> likely change, and they will not be part of Qt 5.1, and they may never be part 
> of a Qt release?

Why does that mean Ubuntu packages are a bad idea?  There are other unstable Linux libraries that people nevertheless make good use of.  Ubuntu is moving towards using Wayland, right?  And I think qtsystems might get some attention in the near term (but it may also get some API changes).