RFC: remove qt-copy

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday 28 May 2009, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Monday 25 May 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > > The current way of doing things for me (in debian) is to take the
> > > released qt tarballs and read over the patches dir of qt-copy and
> > > delicately pick the ones I think is relevant and understandable (these
> > > factors is also influenced by commiter and names in the patch)
> >
> > erf ... are we sure that having packagers decide which patches are best
> > is a better mechanism than having this done upstream in KDE? that sounds
> > like a great way to have various functionally incompatible versions of Qt
> > out there with the reasons for those differences depending on the
> > understanding and motivation of the packager.
> >
> > as a software developer, that runs chills (and not the good sort) down my
> > spine.
>
> I fully agree, but that's what is simply the case today for many packages
> and for many distros, they ship patched packages.

patching shared libs is very different than patching applications or even 
shared infrastructure.

and just because it's "how it is" doesn't mean it's good. it just means that's 
how it is.

we don't need to support poor practice in the future just because it's what 
we've done in the past.

that all sounds obvious and perhaps even simplistic when written in black and 
white. but it's not obvious and it's not at all simple.

-- 
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/20090528/cb03cf87/attachment.sig>