Re: Seeking Qt port maintainer or Qt removal

Roland Mainz wrote:

> There aren't much changes required to get the Qt port working again,
> there are only two major changes which are easy to fix (if someone has
> Qt installed).

Compiling != working port.  I'm looking beyond just getting the Qt port 
compiling again.  I'm looking for someone to "own" this port; to be the 
"go to" person, so to speak.   Qt bugs have had a tendency to bounce off 
of either Browser-General and/or Build Config and then disappear into 
some other component where they rot because the Qt port isn't a priority 
for those component owners.  So obviously, there should be someone for 
whom the Qt port *is* a priority otherwise I'm not seeing the point of 
having the code in the tree.  We need to get better at purging code from 
the tree that regularly breaks every few months due to neglect and isn't 
discovered until a significant time period after the bustage occurred.

Ideally, the maintainer would be someone that builds & tests the Qt port 
regularly.  They should make sure that the port actually implemented a 
full set of features, not just stubs, that would make the port a 
reasonable alternative to the other toolkit ports (gtk, gtk2 & xlib). 
If the Qt port doesn't implement a comparable set of features that the 
other ports do, then what's the point of keeping it around?

> Is there a BugZilla-bug like "Seeking new owner for the Qt-port" yet ?

Nope.  As we do not have any toolkit specific components, I don't see 
the point in filing a bug about this issue.  Well, short of one to 
remove the code.

- cls