Hi everyone, On Do 14 Dez 2023 00:38:29 CET, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Patrick, On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:00:23 PM MST Patrick Franz wrote:Don't forget that the open-source Qt LTS releases are delayed by a year.I wasn’t aware of that. Can you please elaborate on how that timeline works?One of the things I am hoping to accomplish with this bug report is to collectall the information that everyone has regarding this issue in one place to make it easy for others to find it in the future.My understanding is that LTS releases for Qt WebEngine are not delayed becausethe AGPL license doesn’t allow it.
AFAIK, QtWebengine is not affected by the one-year-delay-release policy. In Ubuntu Touch (i.e. Morph Web Browser) we currently also use QtWebEngine (Qt5 version).
For Ubuntu Touch we regularly bump to a latest QtWebEngine 5.15.x release. Problems is that it is based on a very old version of the Chromium webengine (receiving security support, but not progressing forwards).
To switch to a latest chromium engine one needs to build ones browser software against the Qt6 variant of QtWebEngine (this is planned for Ubuntu Touch, but no ETA, yet).
All in all, I dearly welcome Soren's initiative on turning QtWebEngine 5.x and 6.x into rolling release packages inside Debian as the Morph Web Browser (morph-browser by package name) heavily will benefit from this.
Debian stable tends to release in the summer of odd years and Ubuntu LTS tends to release in the spring of even years. If KDE synchronizes their schedule torelease at the beginning of even years to make it easier to be packaged into Ubuntu LTS releases, that makes we wonder how many other projects also synchronize their release schedules to make it easier for Ubuntu.
In the past QtWebEngine has received totally different release management compared to Qt core components. So possibly, none of this applies to QtWebEngine.
Perhaps there are really good reasons for not doing so, but would it be in Debian’s interest to change our release schedule to be in the summer of even years? If other projects besides KDE coordinate their LTS releases around even years, then it might make the lives of many package maintainers easier.
Off topic here. Debian can't synchronize with all upstreams the ship software of nor can upstreams synchronize with Debian. In theory, this is possible, but we in Debian should find workflows that fit with all upstreams. And yes, sometimes its painful missing an upstream release by 2 months because of Debian's freeze policy shortly before a Debian release.
[...]
Responding to Qt core related thoughts only with this: Sticking with LTS upstreams is always a good choice for massive packaging projects (i.e. when many many packages are involved). This applies to Qt and KDE/Plasma I guess.
Greets, Mike -- mike gabriel aka sunweaver (Debian Developer) mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 486 14 27 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: sunwea...@debian.org, http://sunweavers.net
pgp25hvYjkAmc.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
