[pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#1073255: Qt 6 bindings for gpgme

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:15:23 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametzler at bebt.de> wrote:
> On 2024-06-17 Ingo Klöcker <kloecker at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:33:46 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametzler at bebt.de>
> > wrote:
> > > On 2024-06-17 Ingo Klöcker <kloecker at kde.org> wrote:
> > What reverse dependencies?
> 
> These:
> ametzler at argenau:~$ grep-aptavail -FDepends libgpgmepp6t64 -sSource | sort 
> -u

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:22:48 +0200 Andreas Metzler <ametzler at bebt.de> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> There was a copy and paste error.
> ametzler at argenau:~$ grep-aptavail -FDepends libqgpgme15t64 -sSource | sort 
> -u
> Source: gpgme1.0 (1.18.0-4.1)
> Source: kdepim-addons (22.12.3-1)
> Source: kf5-messagelib (4:22.12.3-2.1)
> Source: kget (4:23.08.3-1)
> Source: kleopatra (4:22.12.3-2)
> Source: kmail (4:22.12.3-1)
> Source: kmail-account-wizard (4:22.12.3-1)
> Source: libkf5libkleo (4:22.12.3-1)
> Source: libkf5mailcommon (4:22.12.3-1)
> Source: plasma-pass (1.2.2-1)

All of those will be fine because they use CMake.

> > One benefit is that packagers don't have to wonder anymore whether the
> > headers are/stay identical. We wouldn't even have this conversation if
> > we had used separate folders since we added support for Qt 6.
> 
> We would not have this conversation yes. However if the headers
> continued to stay identical I'd probably think 5 years from now that was
> not the most efficient design. And I might end up with using symlinks to
> avoid duplicate data warning. So I think it is good thing we are having
> this conversation. :-) If your take was "Yes, they are identical /now/
> but probably will not stay that way" a split right now avoids later
> pain.

It's likely that we'll start adding new headers only for Qt 6 once we stop 
doing feature releases of a Qt 5 based Kleopatra. So, yes, they are identical 
/now/ but most likely will not stay that way.

Regards,
Ingo