[Development] Tagging private symbols as such

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer perezmeyer at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 18:01:01 CET 2016

On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 08:02:20 ART Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2016 18:12:13 PST Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> > 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?
> My guess is that they can and they do.
> But the extra versioning is a further safety check: if something was missed
> in the update, like for example some code compiled by the user (regardless
> of use of package management), it will necessarily stop working.

Truth, although we haven't received any complaints about this so far.

> And if it
> used package management, it will not install, or it will prevent upgrade
> until it is provided in a new version.

That's already covered at least in our case.

So from my side: +1 to making QPA symbols marked as private, 0 (tending to -1 
because it will make us work ;-) ) to add minor [.patch] to private symbols 

Worst case scenario we will have to patch it out for some time until we find a 
way to automate the process for our tools. That would leave us with some time 
of non-compatibility but should get fixed for the next stable release that 
includes Qt > 5.8.

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20161207/39ad39ec/attachment.sig>

More information about the Development mailing list