Re: When to drop Qt 4 support and require Qt 5?

[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl>]

> On 25 Jan 2018, at 15:56, Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com> wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Peter Wu
> Sent: den 25 januari 2018 15:20
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Subject: [Wireshark-dev] When to drop Qt 4 support and require Qt 5?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Qt 4.8 has not been supported for two years now ("standard support"
> ended in December 2015,
> https://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/05/26/qt-4-8-7-released/). Is it feasible to drop support for Qt 4 and require Qt 5?
>
> The development branch has apparently been broken for a while, I tried to patch it up here: 
> https://code.wireshark.org/review/25469
>
> Reasons not to drop Qt 4.8 support:
>
> - RHEL/CentOS 6 by default do not have Qt 5, see
>   https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Support_library_version_tracking#RHEL.2FCentOS
>
> Reasons to drop Qt 4.8 support:
>
> - Reduce maintenance overhead (allow use of new Qt 5 features, use new
>   signal/slot syntax, ...).
> - Related to the above, dropping Qt 4 would enable simplification:
>   https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201712/msg00045.html
> - Upstream support has ended in December 2015.
> - We do not test it (not even compile testing), so bugs will sneak in.
> - macOS and Windows already require Qt 5.
>
> It is probably too late for 2.6, but can we commit to this for the next version? Or can we already declare Qt 4 
> unsupported now?
> --
>
> I'd vote for branching off 2.6 now and go all hog and require the latest stuff for everything.( e.g What's in SuSE 
> 12.2 RedHat 7,? Ubuntu 16.04 or 18.04).
> And/Or require Qt5 for 2.6, older systems can still use GTK. 
> /Anders


Hi,

Stig documented on January 13th a list of issues which should be attended too before branching of 2.6 would be prudent. 
I see that translation stuff is being addressed, the rest I haven’t looked at yet. Let’s seriously look at this list 
and come to a conclusion.

Thanks,
Jaap



___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe