From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:22:54 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 0/7] qt5 bump to 5.8.0-rc In-Reply-To: <8737hr4xg6.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1481641171-10407-1-git-send-email-anaumann@ultratronik.de> <20161213164933.6ffc2b51@free-electrons.com> <8737hr4xg6.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20161213172254.750ab43b@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:15:37 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > Related to that - With the move to GPLv3, should we keep v5.6 around > next to v5.8 for a while (as a version selection or separate packages)? > > Maintaining both is not really nice, but GPLv3 is an issue for some > people/companies. I agree that this license change can be an issue for some people/companies. However, for them, staying on Qt 5.6 is no a viable solution long term either, right. Also, do we do this for Samba ? For gcc ? For the myriad of other projects that moved to GPLv3 ? Isn't it going to be a pain to maintain both versions in parallel? A Config.in choice doesn't get randomized on our autobuilders, so the older version would never be tested. So I'm not particularly thrilled with supporting both versions :/ Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com