[Development] Changes to Qt offering

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

Hi!

El mar., 28 ene. 2020 10:46, Bogdan Vatra <bogdan.vatra at kdab.com> escribió:

> În ziua de marți, 28 ianuarie 2020, la 15:26:34 EET, Lisandro Damián
> Nicanor
> Pérez Meyer a scris:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 20/01/27 06:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:48:17 PST Alexander Akulich
> wrote:
> > > > I would expect a significant negative effect on the quality of Qt
> > > > shipped in Linux distributions and thus negative effect on the
> > > > Qt-based applications and Qt reputation.
> > >
> > > That is debatable since most Linux distributions do not align with the
> Qt
> > > LTSes. Kevin's question of 5.15 support while 6.0 is coming is valid,
> but
> > > for all other LTSes, open source Linux distros seem to choose whichever
> > > version was latest at the time they reached feature-freeze.
> > >
> > > Current versions in:
> > > * Debian stable: 5.11.3
> > > * Debian oldstable: 5.7.1
> > > * Fedora 31: 5.12.5
> > > * Fedora 30: 5.12.1
> > > * Fedora 29: 5.11.1
> > > * Fedora 28: 5.10.1
> > > * CentOS 8.1: 5.11.1
> > > * openSUSE 15: 5.9.4 (15.1 now has 5.9.7)
> > > * openSUSE 42.3: 5.6.2
> > > * openSUSE 42.2: 5.6.1
> > > * (K)Ubuntu 19.10: 5.12.4
> > > * Ubuntu 18.10: 5.11.1
> > > * Ubuntu 18.04 LTS: 5.9.5
> > > * Ubuntu 16.04 LTS: 5.5.1
> > > * KDE Neon: 5.13.2
> > > * Manjaro 18.1.0: 5.13.0
> > >
> > > There are a couple of alignments with Qt LTS above but they could be
> > > coincidences. openSUSE 15 was released around 6 months after the 5.10.0
> > > release (and less than 3 after 5.10.1, which is when they seem to make
> > > upgrades) and Ubuntu 18.04 was a month earlier than openSUSE. I thought
> > > Fedora 31 was trying to align, but then I went to search for the
> current
> > > version and F32-in-development has already upgraded out of the LTS to
> > > 5.13.2.
> > >
> > > Ubuntu snapshot for 20.04 is on 5.12.6. That seems to me to be the only
> > > legitimate, intentional alignment on a Qt LTS. If that's confirmed, it
> > > would be the first, after 4 years of having LTS releases.
> >
> > I confirm that because one of their maintainers is also a team mate in
> > Debian, read below.
> >
> > > So it's completely understandable to have concluded that the LTS
> releases
> > > weren't useful to Linux distributions.
> >
> > With my Debian maintainer hat on: exactly as Thiago said. But with a
> note:
> > we have always tried to ship a version as close to an LTS as we could
> (and
> > I know the same goes for Ubuntu, as one of my team mates prepares
> Ubuntu's
> > Qt packages from what we do in Debian). This is because it's normally
> > easier to get the patches from a LTS. But the point remains the same.
>
>   What happens when Qt 6 will be out and TQC closes 5.15 branch and you'll
> have to maintain Qt 5 for a couple of years without any bug fixes from
> upstream? As I pointed in my previous mails, the major risk here is that
> there
> will be a Qt 5.15 fork after the 5.15 branch is closed ... and nobody wins
> from such a scenario.
>

They (QtC) get this solved or they will loose lots of open source traction.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20200128/f218c36f/attachment-0001.html>