Re: Qt4 removal plan

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:26:14PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 >   It's ok to prune leaf packages that merit removal on their own (as
 >   unmaintained for a very long time, with no users), following our usual
 >   process of proposing removal on pkgsrc-users.

...which has not been followed

 >   It's not ok to remove things *because* they depend on qt4-libs.  I
 >   didn't say this clearly, but it's not ok to drop qt4 options without
 >   the usual unmaintained/no-users/proposal.

several of these should probably be reverted.

 > Certainly, if anyone sees a specific removal that's objectionable
 > (including dropping of qt4 options in packages) because there are or are
 > likely to be users -- speak up and it can be reverted, especially if it
 > was not properly proposed on pkgsrc-users.

Several packages got summarily deleted because they were marked BROKEN
because of something wrong with poppler and qt4. These seem like they
ought to be brought back and moved to qt5, or at least fixed by fixing
poppler, not deleted.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost