Bug#874877: [freecad] Future Qt4 removal from Buster

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 11:18:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2017-09-09 21:04, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > = Porting =
> >
> > Some of us where involved in various Qt4 to Qt5 migrations [migration] and 
> > we
> > know for sure that porting stuff from Qt4 to Qt5 is much much easier and 
> > less
> > painful than it was from Qt3 to Qt4.
> 
> If I understand the various posts in the FreeCAD forums correct,
> they seem to go for PySide2. It would be very helpful, if the
> Debian Qt maintainers could package PySide2! Maybe before Qt4 is
> removed, because otherwise some packages have to be removed just
> to introduce them again. I don't think that packaging PySide2
> outside of the Qt team makes sense, because PySide2 will be the
> "official" Python API of Qt, if I'm not mistaken.
> -- 
> "Furthermore, I consider that PySide2 must be packaged" -- Qt the Elder

pyside2 is now in unstable:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyside2

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Bug#874877: [freecad] Future Qt4 removal from Buster

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

Hi Martin!


On 9 September 2017 at 18:18, W. Martin Borgert  wrote:
> On 2017-09-09 21:04, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
>> = Porting =
>>
>> Some of us where involved in various Qt4 to Qt5 migrations [migration] and we
>> know for sure that porting stuff from Qt4 to Qt5 is much much easier and less
>> painful than it was from Qt3 to Qt4.
>
> If I understand the various posts in the FreeCAD forums correct,
> they seem to go for PySide2. It would be very helpful, if the
> Debian Qt maintainers could package PySide2! Maybe before Qt4 is
> removed, because otherwise some packages have to be removed just
> to introduce them again. I don't think that packaging PySide2
> outside of the Qt team makes sense, because PySide2 will be the
> "official" Python API of Qt, if I'm not mistaken.
> --
> "Furthermore, I consider that PySide2 must be packaged" -- Qt the Elder

So far no one in the team is interested in PySide2 and our current
manpower does not allows us to even take it as a pet package. I don't
know if asking upstream to use PyQt5 (which is kind of more official)
would be a good idea, else someone needs to step up to maintain
PySide2. Of course [s]he is welcomed in the team to do that!

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

-- 
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

Bug#874877: [freecad] Future Qt4 removal from Buster

[W. Martin Borgert]

On 2017-09-09 21:04, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> = Porting =
>
> Some of us where involved in various Qt4 to Qt5 migrations [migration] and we
> know for sure that porting stuff from Qt4 to Qt5 is much much easier and less
> painful than it was from Qt3 to Qt4.

If I understand the various posts in the FreeCAD forums correct,
they seem to go for PySide2. It would be very helpful, if the
Debian Qt maintainers could package PySide2! Maybe before Qt4 is
removed, because otherwise some packages have to be removed just
to introduce them again. I don't think that packaging PySide2
outside of the Qt team makes sense, because PySide2 will be the
"official" Python API of Qt, if I'm not mistaken.
-- 
"Furthermore, I consider that PySide2 must be packaged" -- Qt the Elder

Bug#874877: [freecad] Future Qt4 removal from Buster

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

Source: freecad
Version: 0.16+dfsg2-3
0.16.6712+dfsg1-1
Severity: wishlist
User: debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qt4-removal


Hi! As you might know we the Qt/KDE team are preparing to remove Qt4
as [announced] in:

[announced] 


Currently Qt4 has been dead upstream and we are starting to have problems
maintaining it, like for example in the [OpenSSL 1.1 support] case.

[OpenSSL 1.1 support] 

In order to make this move, all packages directly or indirectly depending on
the Qt4 libraries have to either get ported to Qt5 or eventually get
removed from the Debian repositories.

Therefore, please take the time and:
- contact your upstream (if existing) and ask about the state of a Qt5
port of your application
- if there are no activities regarding porting, investigate whether there are
suitable alternatives for your users
- if there is a Qt5 port that is not yet packaged, consider packaging it
- if both the Qt4 and the Qt5 versions already coexist in the Debian
archives, consider removing the Qt4 version

= Porting =

Some of us where involved in various Qt4 to Qt5 migrations [migration] and we
know for sure that porting stuff from Qt4 to Qt5 is much much easier and less
painful than it was from Qt3 to Qt4.

We also understand that there is still a lot of software still using Qt4.

Don't forget to take a look at the C++ API changes page [apichanges] whenever
you start porting your application.

[migration] http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/packagingqtbasedstuff.html
[apichanges] http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/sourcebreaks.html

For any questions and issues, do not hesitate to contact the Debian Qt/KDE
team at debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org

The removal is being tracked in 

Lisandro,
on behalf of the Qt4 maintainers