| 1 |
On 12/30/2009 12:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2010-01-21: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> * Qt team meeting: discuss actions to be taken regarding remaining |
| 5 |
> pkgs that use qt:3 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 2010-02-21: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> * mask qt:3 and depending ebuilds, pending removal |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
30 days isn't a long time. How about filing bugs against anything that |
| 12 |
currently uses qt3 right away, so that maintainers have an extra three |
| 13 |
weeks to resolve these issues? Granted, one would hope they've been |
| 14 |
paying attention. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As a random example, the current stable version of mythtv uses qt3, but |
| 17 |
I don't see any open bugs about that (that package is probably an easy |
| 18 |
fix as the newer versions use qt3support, and that version is already |
| 19 |
stable upstream). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Usually the approach in these situations is to have a big tracker bug |
| 22 |
for qt3 removal and a million blocker bugs against individual packages. |
| 23 |
I'm not saying you can't move forward until everybody else gets their |
| 24 |
acts together, but tracking this in bugzilla probably isn't a bad move |
| 25 |
if it isn't too much work. Plus, you might decide that one or two of |
| 26 |
the blockers really are critical, and decide to work with those |
| 27 |
maintainers more closely or escalate the issue. |
Archives