[lsb-discuss] Modularization design proposal

Robert Schweikert rjschwei at suse.com
Tue Apr 3 22:26:58 UTC 2012

On 03/30/2012 06:12 PM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Craig Scott <audiofanatic at gmail.com
> <mailto:audiofanatic at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Just wondering how the Qt modularisation would work. Would it
>     include Qt3 and Qt4? With Qt5 about to come out, Qt3 will shortly be
>     end-of-lifed (many would argue it already has been). There has been
>     a long time with Qt3 being deprecated, so it could be argued that
>     Qt3 is just about ripe for removal from the LSB for the LSB 5.0 release.
> it's almost certain qt3 will be dropped for 5.0, but your question is
> still an interesting one, as we would have to think about does a qt
> module mandate two qt versions at the same time when qt5 does become a
> candidate - which is probably not for 5.0

Basically I agree with Mats, QT3 will be gone for 5.0 and Qt5 will not 
be a candidate for 5.0. But I'd like to take this a bit father. IMHO we 
should not have 2 versions of the same toolkit "active" at the same 
time. Meaning when we add Qt5 we should deprecate Qt4. The result is 
that the LSB-Toolkit-Qt module always points to the latest version and 
there will be a version LSB-Toolkit-QtX where X stands in for the 
version of the deprecated toolkit.

Yes, this means people that insist on sticking to things we deprecate 
have to change their dependency checking code.


Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list