{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6267","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6267/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6267/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6267/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6267","id":87005218,"number":6267,"title":"Static Qt5 in Linux builds","user":{"login":"welshjf","id":7895696,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7895696?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf","html_url":"https://github.com/welshjf","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/welshjf/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/labels/GUI","name":"GUI","color":"02d7e1"}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":15,"created_at":"2015-06-10T15:19:43Z","updated_at":"2015-06-22T19:16:02Z","closed_at":"2015-06-22T19:16:02Z","body":"I see the Linux builds for 0.11.0rc1 are statically linked to Qt5, where previously they were dynamically linked to Qt4. I'm glad for the upgrade, not so much the static linking. Is there a reason for this, and could it be referenced in the release notes? My argument against would be, unlike OpenSSL, it's not consensus critical, and it's more important to be consistent with the distribution for look and feel. I realize this would reduce support for older distro versions. Alternately, could the static build be updated to the latest Qt (5.4 instead of 5.2)?\r\n\r\nSpecific issues I'm seeing, under KDE 5 / Fedora 22:\r\n* Doesn't look like the system theme\r\n* Systray icon missing (KDE 5 dropped support for the old xembed systray in favor of the appindicator/status-notifier protocol; handled transparently in Qt 5.4 and distro-patched 4.8)\r\n\r\nI've compiled successfully against Qt 5.4.1, but can't actually test as Red Hat's lawyers are still hobbling secp256k1 in their OpenSSL package. Happy to test if an upstream build is done."}}