Re: RFC: Switching to min Qt version 5.14 for KF on December 14th
On Sun Dec 06, 2020 at 08:32:36PM +0100, Adriaan de Groot wrote: > On Sunday, 6 December 2020 18:05:19 CET David Faure wrote: > > On dimanche 6 décembre 2020 17:39:38 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > * MidnightBSD > > > * openBSD > > > > > > The BSDs are a bit more unfortunate. > > > > Thanks for the information, Albert. > > > > Apparently this means bumping the requirement to Qt 5.14 would break > > OpenBSD. Will this Qt bump happen before or after the 5.77 release? Anyway, this is okay for OpenBSD. I'm working on a Qt 5.15.1 update (qt5-webengine makes me insane). > > > > How can we reach OpenBSD KDE people? > > CC'ing kde-free...@kde.org, I know it's not the same, but maybe you guys > > know? ;) I am the maintainer for KDE/Qt5+ on OpenBSD. (rsadow...@openbsd.org) so you can reach me directly. Yes there is a mailing list "openbsd-...@googlegroups.com". This will be shut down this year I see no point in maintaining this list. > > Rafael Sadowski , ping them on invent or on phab (or in the CC of this > message > :) ). Adriaan, thanks for the ping. > > [ade]
KDE CI: Frameworks » kdav » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 28 - Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/kdav/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/28/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:18:37 + Build duration: 1 min 38 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 5 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 6 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.kdav_davcollectionsmultifetchjobtest
D22544: [RFC] Deprecate KPassivePopup
nicolasfella abandoned this revision. REPOSITORY R289 KNotifications REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D22544 To: nicolasfella, #frameworks, broulik Cc: ngraham, davidedmundson, aspotashev, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, cblack, michaelh, bruns
Re: RFC: Switching to min Qt version 5.14 for KF on December 14th
On Sonntag, 6. Dezember 2020 14:20:47 CET Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > you might have seen I asked* whether anyone knows a real world requirement > to stick with Qt 5.13 as new current minimum required Qt version for > current KF releases. So far no-one had to report a reason to support Qt >= > 5.13 instead of only Qt >= 5.14 now. > * E.g. > https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/distributions/2020-December/000894.html > > So hereby I propose to switch for KF 5.78 to Qt 5.14 as minimum version, and > change the KF dependencies policy text* to this: > * https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_Qt_requirements > > " > With Qt6 this changes a little bit again. We interpolate "as if" more Qt 5 > versions would be released. Then adapt to actual real world usage of a given > Qt version: > * Qt 5.13 will be the minimum required version 6 months after Qt 5.15, i.e. > on 26 Nov 2020 > * Qt 5.14 would be the minimum required version 12 months after Qt 5.15, > i.e. on 26 May 2021. With no-one known to stick with Qt 5.13, the date is > moved to earlier mid-December 2020. > * Qt 5.15 LTS will be the minimum required version 18 months after its > release, i.e. on 26 Nov 2021 > " Thanks! I'm generally in favor of an accelerated path to Qt 5.15 as the minimum dependency in the light of the upcoming Qt 6 transition. The proposed approach only addresses half of the problem though, we'll end up with the same discussion in a few month again I fear. Would it therefore make sense to cover this as well now, so people can plan ahead? For example: > With Qt6 this changes a little bit again. We interpolate "as if" more Qt 5 > versions would be released on a slightly accelerated schedule to match the > expected convergence towards the final Qt5 release: > * Qt 5.13 will be the minimum required version 6 months after Qt 5.15, i.e. > on 26 Nov 2020 > * Qt 5.14 would be the minimum required version 7 months after Qt 5.15, > i.e. on 26 Dec 2020. > * Qt 5.15 LTS will be the minimum required version 12 months after its > release, i.e. on 26 May 2021 (I'm not tied to any specific date in there, but you get the idea) One thing I haven't really seen addressed yet is Krita's concerns about newer Qt versions, how do we want to handle that? Regards, Volker
Re: RFC: Switching to min Qt version 5.14 for KF on December 14th
Hi Rafael, thanks for your quick reply. Am Montag, 7. Dezember 2020, 06:48:44 CET schrieb Rafael Sadowski: > On Sun Dec 06, 2020 at 08:32:36PM +0100, Adriaan de Groot wrote: > > On Sunday, 6 December 2020 18:05:19 CET David Faure wrote: > > > On dimanche 6 décembre 2020 17:39:38 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > > * MidnightBSD > > > > * openBSD > > > > > > > > The BSDs are a bit more unfortunate. > > > > > > Thanks for the information, Albert. > > > > > > Apparently this means bumping the requirement to Qt 5.14 would break > > > OpenBSD. > > Will this Qt bump happen before or after the 5.77 release? After, the bump to Qt 5.14 is currently proposed to happen Mid-December, so would be seen for release consumers first with released KF 5.78 in January 2021. For KF 5.77 another bump has just happened to Qt 5.13 (was Qt 5.12 before) as per dependency plan updated earlier this year*. Which then triggered this discussion whether with what we now see being used around us we should perhaps simplify our life (as e.g. there are lots of "#if Qt < 5.14 #else #endif" in the code) and go already to Qt 5.14 now. *https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_Qt_requirements > Anyway, this is okay for OpenBSD. I'm working on a Qt > 5.15.1 update (qt5-webengine makes me insane). Very good (and all the best to recover once done ;) ) BTW, please consider subscribing to our special-purpose mailinglist: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions where such things are discussed with the big consumers of what is released by KDE. It is a low volume mailinglist, so should not be a big price to pay for being in good loop with upstream as well as your related packaging fellows. FTR, the email asking about this topic there is https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/distributions/2020-December/000894.html Cheers Friedrich
