Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 16:57:52 -0700
On Thursday, 30 October 2025 12:06:49 Pacific Daylight Time Oliver Hunt via
Std-Proposals wrote:
> As a footnote: this thread is descending into arguments that have been made
> previously, and have been raised in NB comments for Kona, so we should not
> be flooding the list with the same arguments again, as nothing on this list
> can impact anything about the specification at this point.
Agreed. This is now in the hands of the National Bodies and the committee.
But if any of them are reading, I repeat: Qt's verdict on the current wording
of trivial relocatability is "only partially useful in the current form which
means we don't plan on adopting this until it effectively becomes P1144".
Std-Proposals wrote:
> As a footnote: this thread is descending into arguments that have been made
> previously, and have been raised in NB comments for Kona, so we should not
> be flooding the list with the same arguments again, as nothing on this list
> can impact anything about the specification at this point.
Agreed. This is now in the hands of the National Bodies and the committee.
But if any of them are reading, I repeat: Qt's verdict on the current wording
of trivial relocatability is "only partially useful in the current form which
means we don't plan on adopting this until it effectively becomes P1144".
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
Received on 2025-10-30 23:58:07