<html><head></head><body><div>Hi Peter,</div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, 2024-10-03 at 17:16 +0100, Peter B wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On 03/10/2024 16:16, Abou Al Montacir wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Peter,<br></div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, 2024-10-03 at 12:22 +0100, Peter B wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On 03/10/2024 07:01, Abou Al Montacir wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Is there any reason why you created a new repository?<br></div><div>Why not using <a href="https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libqtpas">https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libqtpas</a><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Abou,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Sorry I miss-read your original post, thinking the issue was debian vs <br></div><div>pascal-team namespace!<br></div><div><br></div><div>The reason I did not use libqtpas, was to leave that alone for Qt5.<br></div><div>I'm assuming we want Qt5 & Qt6 support to co-exist for a while.<br></div><div>Seems to me its maybe a bit premature to drop Qt5 support for Trixie,<br></div><div>with Lazarus/Qt6 largely untested in Debian at the moment.<br></div></blockquote><div>That makes sens, but please read below</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>I suggest we have libqtpas for Qt5<br></div><div>and libqt6pas for Qt6.<br></div></blockquote><div>That means that libqt6.pas packages will go throw NEW. I would rather put both in the same sources and ship both in same package. However does it make too much sense?</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>Then we can build the IDE for both.</div></blockquote><div>That means we will have 3 IDE shipped. I think it does not make too much sens. I would rather keep the IDE with the most stable QT version.</div><div>Anyway, even with GTK IDE, one can build Qt5 applications and even rebuild a Qt5 IDE locally.</div><div>Taking into account that upstream are too source focused, I would not recommend adding this 3rd IDE package and wait for NEW queue.</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>Peter<br></div><div><br></div><div>P.S. Might make more sense, to have libqtpas called libqt5pas,<br></div><div>but not suggesting we change it now.</div></blockquote><div>Unless we decide to ship both in same package, but I don't have strong opinion on that.</div><pre style="caret-color: rgb(46, 52, 54); color: rgb(46, 52, 54); font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">-- <br></pre><pre style="caret-color: rgb(46, 52, 54); color: rgb(46, 52, 54); font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir</pre><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></body></html>