[Development] Proposal: All Qt modules must use the same version number

Albisser Zeno Zeno.Albisser at digia.com
Mon Jun 30 10:34:19 CEST 2014

On 6/30/14, 10:06 AM, "Olivier Goffart" <olivier at woboq.com> wrote:
>I think there should be some kind of long term goal to avoid using

I totally agree with you on that. Private headers are private for a reason.
If API from a private header is needed outside the project itself, this is
an indication that the API should be available publicly.

>We need to find a solution so that one need not to inherit from
>QObjectPrivate. (There is already QObject::setUserData, but it could be
>better i guess)
>We need also to identify private APIs that could be polished and made
>For some modules such as QtQuick this is probably too hard.
>But for new modules such as WebEngine or such, it may be possible to
>dependency on private API.

QtQuick is exactly why Qt WebEngine uses private headers. ;-)

I think it is not reasonable to tie Qt WebEngine to the version number of
This also implies if we just as an example cherry-pick a critical security
fix from chromium to Qt WebEngine, we would have to bump the version
number of the whole of Qt.
And therefore build and release new packages for everything. - And Qt
WebEngine is only one single module.

- Zeno

More information about the Development mailing list