The QT5 print support is quite incomplete and prevents any "just a little bit out of standard" print configuration (change paper tray, this kind of not-so-weird needs). See https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-54464 So it is a very bad idea to remove QT4 support on any ebuild for a program that could print, such as qpdfview. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Request print document, search an "advanced configuration" tab or the like to change paper tray or similar need. Actual Results: Impossible to use "advanced" printer functions Expected Results: Should be possible to use "advanced" printer functions, as it is with Qt4 Keeping Qt4 support (in parallel to Qt5) is the only way to keep working while waiting for complete print support in Qt5.
You are rather late to notice that, how many Qt4 applications are left at this point where printing is a thing? Unfortunately keeping Qt4 for much longer is not an option, soon it will be impossible to paper over the cracks.
Sorry, Qt 4 is completely dead upstream and is breaking worse every day. We don't have the resources to try and keep it on life support.
The request was not to ask for maintenance of packages wrt Qt4 (i.e. making patch files to put back Qt4 in some application and the like). It's only not to *delete* Qt4-working ebuilds (masking or keywording them is okay). If some of your workflow depends on proper printing, it is really a pita to have to perform ebuild archeology to get back to previous functionalities - especially if the ebuild dropped Qt4 support without any version change. I do understand that Qt4 is dead and trying to keep it on life support would be sub-optimal. But please do not kill users by deleting ebuild versions we cannot work without (while praying that upstream gets the hint and put things right).
(In reply to Pierre-Yves Bonnetain from comment #3) You can't have one: > But please do not kill users by deleting ebuild versions we cannot work > without (while praying that upstream gets the hint and put things right). without the other: > I do understand that Qt4 is dead and trying to keep it on life support would > be sub-optimal. And the correct term to use here isn't 'sub-optimal' but 'impossible'.
