On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19 March 2015 at 08:43, Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:
Dave Johansen wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Fenzi
> <kevin@scrye.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:00:35 -0700
>> Dave Johansen <davejohansen@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 updated
> 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 are
> 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 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282668 ). 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.

Any objections?