[lsb-discuss] Qt 4 decision
msrex at suse.de
Wed Sep 5 05:38:51 PDT 2007
On Sep 05, 07 14:29:55 +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >We've had the Qt 4 issue hanging for a while now, and the time has come
> >to make up our minds. There has been some discussion of the issues of
> >upgrading Qt 4 to mandatory, and some responses (by, among others,
> >TrollTech, who has indicated they are willing to fix issues that need
> >So, it's time to hash it out and fix things, or decide finally that
> >we're not going to do it for some set of good reasons.
> >As of now, the LSB position is that Qt 4 will become mandatory for LSB
> >3.2, subject to TrollTech's assistance in uplifting the standard such
> >that it covers the common set of Qt 4 ABIs shipping in the major distros
> >currently shipping in LSB 3.1-certified distros, and in otherwise fixing
> >QA issues in the current Qt 4 specs and tests.
> One of the issues with Qt4 ABI specification is lack of documentation
> for some interfaces.
> Please find attached the list of undocumented Qt4 interfaces, which are
> included in the standard.
> They are grouped in three sheets:
> Regular interfaces - 360 entries
> Meta-related interfaces - 460 entries
> Destructors - 78 entries
> We have to make a decision regarding to each of the interfaces.
> I see the following three options:
> - create specification text for an interface;
> - exclude an interface from the standard;
> - say that an interface have not be used by ISVs directly,
> but it have to be present in all LSB-compliant distros.
> In this case we also have to define what is valid behaviour of the
I would prefer the 1st option, although the sheer number of interfaces
could make this a timing challenge.
Markus Rex (msrex at suse.de)
Chief Technology Officer, The Linux Foundation
It's much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
More information about the lsb-discuss