[Development] Tagging private symbols as such
mitya57.ml at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 16:12:13 CET 2016
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:26:41PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So I think it's not a good idea to apply the SUSE patch as-is. The QPA part
> makes sense, though.
I also dislike this change. As Lisandro says, we do not want it in Debian
(because we keep track of versions ourselves in the symbols file, and when the
versions are in the symbols themselves they are just useless noise for us).
And as you say, you do not want distributions Qt builds to be ABI incompatible
with upstream (we also would like to avoid that), so if this patch gets
applied upstream, we will be in a bad situation.
I wonder what was the reason for OpenSUSE to have this change — I could not
find a relevant changelog entry. Why cannot they just rebuild all packages
using private headers for every Qt release, like we do?
> I wonder: do we want a different ELF version for the QPA bits, other than
I think Qt_5_PRIVATE_API is enough. (But I won't mind if something different
is used, provided that it does not change from release to release.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Development