RFC: remove qt-copy

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'm with Sune here.

that every distro should ship a differently patched Qt at the discretion of 
the packager?

> First of all, Qt Software's position is that you shouldn't patch Qt at all.

which i think is what we should work towards, but until then:

> But if I now put my KDE hat on, there's the need for a staging are for
> patches that Qt Software has not accepted or has rejected, but are still
> needed. For example, Luboš's checkWindowRole patch (0180). Those are
> patches to Qt that KDE strongly suggests distributors to ship.

we need to work on the "not accepted or rejected" thing and make sure that 
come release time whatever patches are in some blessed and well known git repo 
is what we recommend distros to ship as "Qt". if a patch hasn't been reviewed 
(regardless of accept/reject) then it shouldn't end up in that repo (or the 
"ship it" branch at least).

to recap, imo:

* different Qt's on different OSes is insane

* if we must have a patched Qt, let's do it consistently across all OSes.

* best is to just work directly with Qt upstream and stop this whole "having 
patches floating forever in qt-copy"

what would probably also help is having patch level Qt releases with bug fixes 
prior to kde releases so we aren't stuck in qt-vs-kde release limbos.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20090526/fbb50348/attachment.sig>