On qtfeedback/qtpim/qtsystems

[Pino Toscano]

Hi Mike,

in addition to qtsystems that was accepted in unstable around four
months ago, recently also two more Qt modules were accepted: qtfeedback
and qtpim.

While I definitely do not have anything against them (I even helped you
with qtsystems), I start to wonder what's the strategy behind them.
If I look at their upstream status, I see for basically all of them the
following situation:
- no stable releases
- the only tag in their upstream repos is v5.0.0-beta1
- not that many commits per year
- the vast majority of the commits are mass changes (like remove
  QString::null, s/Q_NULLPTR/nullptr/, QRegExp->QRegularExpression,
  and so) which happen to be done also for them
- very few, if almost zero actual development/bugfixing done on them
So not exactly the best situation to handle and, since there's still
time before the next freeze, food for thought.

I see all of these modules have the UBports team as co-maintainer
listed, so I understand that UBports uses them somehow. Am I correct?
If so, my question is: what for? At least from a quick glance, it seems
to me that there are much better, and way more actively developed,
alternatives to these. Do you know whether upstream is planning already
to switch away from these Qt modules? If not, can we please open a
discussion to make it so?

Thanks,
-- 
Pino Toscano
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20200823/164a169e/attachment.sig>