[MatthiasPortzel]

These two comments stand out to me as inappropriate (directed at OBS).

> keeping up with runtime updates is one of the most basic expectations of a maintainer, and I suspect it's a sign there may be other problems as well.

> I won't mince words: allowing the runtime to go EOL is unacceptable and indicates terrible maintainership.

I don't use Fedora but I do use OBS… on Mac, because OBS is hands-down the most popular application for streaming on any platform. It's crazy that OBS works great on Mac, works great on Windows, works great on Linux if using the OBS Flatpak, and when the Fedora-packaged-flatpak breaks and this Fedora guy starts saying that this is indicative that "there may be other problems".

If OBS isn't good enough for Fedora to ship a working version, then show me the streaming software that is.

[MatthiasPortzel]

Also worth pointing out, Qt versions are supported for 6 months before EOL, unless you purchase enterprise support.

[Jap2-0]

Those two as well as

> Flathub maintainers are sometimes just bad at maintaining their packages, and, well...

[daurentius523]

As person who does not use OBS.

"If OBS isn't good enough for Fedora" - fanboyism is never good. If OBS has issues in development then what? What would you do if it stops updating Qt permanently? Think not let emotions act.

"works great" - doesn't mean it is secure.

You can write application that works great and is swiss cheese from security standpoint. You can write secure application that works like nightmare.

"inappropriate" - why? If it is statement of fact then it can not be inappropriate.

Also mind you OBS blocked the issue about fact that they use EOL qt on github - this does not look to me as good project.

"the Fedora-packaged-flatpak breaks" - is it broken? Because no one even speaks about real state of package! Or by "broken" you mean - does not have functionality I want! Or it uses Qt version which breaks the application!

Because In first case that not breakage - that's loss of functionality and if motivated by legal reasons - I can understand (not approve since US software patents are from my perspective idiocy), if motivated by security I wholeheartedly approve - because you are shooting messenger(fedora) of bad news(OBS bad practices) here.

In second - Qt is broken so send regards to them and their policy: Update it so often to make GPL/LGPL version as miserable as possible. Which they then use to sell companies the LTS versions under proprietary license.

I agree with breaking (it is good feedback about software state) to modernize dependencies - but then again I'm using Arch so…