On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com>
On 19 March 2015 at 08:43, Dave Johansen <davejohansen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
>> Dave Johansen wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Fenzi
>> > <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:00:35 -0700
>> >> Dave Johansen <davejohansen(a)gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Is that really true? The Qt 5 package in EPEL 6 has been updated
>> >> > several times and I don't recall ever seeing an
>> >> > email/announcement/etc.
>> >> Were the upgrades incompatible? You have to manually intervene?
>> > Honestly, on the machines I'm using, I installed 5.2 and haven't
>> > since 5.3 was released because I didn't want to rebuild and re-test
>> all of
>> > my stuff, but my understanding of the following is that the upgrades
>> > not completely compatible:
>> > http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/versions/qt.html
>> Fwiw, Qt upstream takes both api and abi stability pretty seriously
>> (official public interfaces). If you experience any concrete
>> incompatibilities after upgrading, it's arguably a bug worth fixing.
> Yes, but doesn't the change in the name of the .so require a rebuild?
So we can't speak in circles for a bit longer... what .so are you seeing
this happen with. Yes a changed so will break a build so if it is happening
then it needs to be looked and dealt with. A library may update itself but
not bump the .so
Sorry, I let this topic go for a while. It appears that the change in the
name of the .so didn't not require a rebuild for Qt Creator to continue
working, so I guess it's not a problem.
On another note, a bugzilla was just opened to request that Qt Creator be
updated inline with Qt 5 (
). I'm going to assume
that since it appears that everyone is ok with Qt 5 being updated in EPEL
that it's ok for Qt Creator to be updated as well.