On jeudi 17 décembre 2020 00:20:41 CET Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > Hi, > > Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2020, 22:25:32 CET schrieb David Faure: > > Just a data point on this discussion. Every time we raise the min Qt > > version, we make life easier for KDE developers, and harder for others who > > might be thinking of integrating a framework into their project. > > > > Just today I tried using a KF5 library to extend a single plugin in an > > existing webserver (which I don't control, and which is mostly written in > > python) [1]. That server is entirely set up with a docker environment on > > top of... debian buster, which has Qt 5.11.3. > > Fail. > > I'm going to have to apply a patch to the KF5 library as part of the > > Dockerfile, to port it back to Qt 5.11. No way I can convince them to > > change the base distribution, all I'll get as a reply is to port away > > from QtCore. > > > > Obviously the 5.11 ship has sailed by now, and I know we can't support old > > versions forever, but this kind of experience makes me very wary of > > raising > > requirements too fast. > > I am reading an objection to the proposed bump in these words, am I correct > in doing that?
Objection is a strong word. I am not blocking the proposed bump, I am merely realizing that the balance between contributor convenience and user-convenience (where the user is a developer) is difficult to achieve, after this (anecdotal indeed) evidence. (And yes I needed something very recent, but it wasn't actually a framework, it was another Qt/KDE library, KOpeningHours. I thought it was still illustrative of what one might encounter when trying to use a KDE framework outside its usual box of "the rest of the KDE software".) > Though please those who want to support Qt 5.13 for some more time, consider > adding support for KDE CI then. It leaves a bad feeling in my stomach that > KF 5.77+ seems effectively for Qt 5.13 with a sticker "Good Luck!" right > now. I fear that lowers the image with (potential) KF consumers, it does at > least with me for other projects. > I (and possibly many other KF contributors) have no way to test against Qt > 5.13, so might introduce regressions/break things in the future, which feels > bad :/ Right. That's a reason to fix something indeed, but there are still two ways to fix that, if it was the only reason : either raise min req to Qt 5.14, or ask for a Qt 5.13 CI. In general I might have asked for a more conservative approach; but currently anything we do to help with preparing the Qt 6 migration is a good thing, and having one less Qt version to support helps with that. So, in those exceptional circumstances, I'm in favour, go for it. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
