Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Dmitry Shachnev]

Hi Steve,

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:08:45PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> DigiKam itself currently uses (Qt4-version) libqtwebkit-dev.  I saw the bug
> about it and the web page https://wiki.debian.org/Qt4WebKitRemoval
> What I haven't seen is a precise time for this.  The schedule for Digikam 5
> release is May, so I (hopefully) won't need to care after that.  Is the webkit
> going to be removed before next May?

Actually I would like it to be removed before May. I am going to bump bugs
severities to important soon (in January) and make them RC a couple of months
after that (i.e. in March) to get the packages removed from testing (or fixed).

I am also going to remove the PyQt5 QtWebKit bindings very soon (in a couple
of weeks).

So maybe it's not the best idea to introduce a new package using QtWebKit.

Lisandro, you did not reply to this part of Steve's message, what do you think?

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Steve Robbins]

Just for clarity:  I'm talking about digikam not a new package.  

On December 28, 2015 6:07:12 AM CST, Dmitry Shachnev  wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:08:45PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>> DigiKam itself currently uses (Qt4-version) libqtwebkit-dev.  I saw
>the bug
>> about it and the web page https://wiki.debian.org/Qt4WebKitRemoval
>> What I haven't seen is a precise time for this.  The schedule for
>Digikam 5
>> release is May, so I (hopefully) won't need to care after that.  Is
>the webkit
>> going to be removed before next May?
>
>Actually I would like it to be removed before May. I am going to bump
>bugs
>severities to important soon (in January) and make them RC a couple of
>months
>after that (i.e. in March) to get the packages removed from testing (or
>fixed).
>
>I am also going to remove the PyQt5 QtWebKit bindings very soon (in a
>couple
>of weeks).
>
>So maybe it's not the best idea to introduce a new package using
>QtWebKit.
>
>Lisandro, you did not reply to this part of Steve's message, what do
>you think?
>
>--
>Dmitry Shachnev
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Dmitry Shachnev]

Hi Steve,

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 07:30:52AM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> Just for clarity:  I'm talking about digikam not a new package.  

Oh, I missed the fact that digikam is already depending on qtwebkit.

Then, indeed, please ignore my message and go ahead (as Lisandro said).

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Monday 28 December 2015 15:07:12 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:08:45PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > DigiKam itself currently uses (Qt4-version) libqtwebkit-dev.  I saw the
> > bug
> > about it and the web page https://wiki.debian.org/Qt4WebKitRemoval
> > What I haven't seen is a precise time for this.  The schedule for Digikam
> > 5
> > release is May, so I (hopefully) won't need to care after that.  Is the
> > webkit going to be removed before next May?
> 
> Actually I would like it to be removed before May. I am going to bump bugs
> severities to important soon (in January) and make them RC a couple of
> months after that (i.e. in March) to get the packages removed from testing
> (or fixed).
> 
> I am also going to remove the PyQt5 QtWebKit bindings very soon (in a couple
> of weeks).
> 
> So maybe it's not the best idea to introduce a new package using QtWebKit.
> 
> Lisandro, you did not reply to this part of Steve's message, what do you
> think?

We need a kf5-based kdepim in unstable first. I was told that current packages 
in experimental are not ready for unstable yet.

-- 
When the winds of change are blowing, some people are building shelters, and
others are building windmills.
  Old Chinese Proverb

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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Monday 28 December 2015 15:40:14 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
[snip] 
> We need a kf5-based kdepim in unstable first. I was told that current
> packages in experimental are not ready for unstable yet.

For what it's worth digikam is already in the archive, so just go ahead Steve.

-- 
Programming is really just the mundane aspect of expressing a solution to a
problem. There are talents that are specifically related to actually coding,
but the real issue is being able to grasp problems and devise solutions that
are detailed enough to actually be coded.
  John Carmack answers on Slashdot,
  http://slashdot.org/games/99/10/15/1012230.shtml

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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Sunday 27 December 2015 12:08:45 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks a lot to all who responded.  I sense a strong feeling against
> introducing new Qt4-based packages right now.  And this makes sense to me.
> 
> Given that my only motivation for a Qt4 version of these libraries is for
> DigiKam 4.x, I will propose instead to avoid the new library packages by
> bundling the sources into digikam.  This is, essentially, returning to the
> situation with DigiKam 4.4, which included sources for the following:
> libkdcraw  libkexiv2  libkface  libkgeomap  libkipi  libksane  libkvkontakte
> libmediawiki.  Some of these are currently in the archive as Qt4 versions
> and some are not.  My strategy would be to bundle the minimum necessary.
> 
> I know the Debian stance on "convenience" copies of libraries, but in this
> case (a) no-one wants or needs a new Qt4 version of these libraries, and (b)
> it is temporary as DigiKam 4.x is going away within 6 months.
> 
> Let me know if you have a better idea.

I would simply say: ship it. I think that in this *very specific* case it's 
the right way to go.

-- 
15: Que es el "Correo Electronico"
* El correo que te llega por la corriente
Damian Nadales
http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html

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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Tuesday 22 December 2015 15:52:00 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It's not a new package.  It was just behind several releases and the
> > question was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5
> > version.
> 
> By “new package” I meant kgeomanip, which was never packaged.

As long as it doesn't depends on qtwebkit we should be fine.

Steve: if you need to add it just go ahead please. As you said Digikam is 
expected to switch to Qt5 later next year so it's worth the effort.

Thanks a lot for your time on it!

-- 
En 1975, a los 99 años, muere Leonor Acevedo de Borges. En el velorio, una
mujer da el pésame a Borges y comenta: "Pobre Leonorcita, morirse tan poquito
antes de cumplir los 100 años. Si hubiera esperado un poquito más...".
Borges responde: "Veo, señora, que es usted devota del sistema decimal".
  Jorge Luis Borges, en "Borges habla de su madre". http://2tu.us/2i7d

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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 03:52:00 PM Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It's not a new package.  It was just behind several releases and the
> > question was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5
> > version.
> 
> By “new package” I meant kgeomanip, which was never packaged.

Ah.  That's a bit different.  I still think it's not a problem if a Qt5 version 
is coming soon.

Scott K

-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Re: Building DigiKam 4.14 with libkgeomanip and other former "extras"

[Steve M. Robbins]

[Since the conversation is now Debian-specific, I trimmed digikam-devel]


On December 21, 2015 12:54:46 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> On Sunday 20 December 2015 17:22:07 Steve M. Robbins wrote:


> > Question 1: Given that I'm building DigiKam 4.x, I presume I'll need a
> > KDE4/Qt4 version of each extra.  Is that the case?
> 
> It should be, you can't mix Qt4 and Qt5

OK.  Thanks for confirming.



> > Question 2: If I can't use the latest kface, should I just go backwards in
> > time to find the last release using KDE4 and use that with DigiKam?
> 
> I'm afraid yes.
> 
> Another solution could be to just build the 5.0.0 beta2 which, if I'm not
> mistaken, uses Qt5/KF5. And maybe push it to experimental.

I am aware of 5.x betas.  I hesitate to use them right now because of the 
"beta" status.  The announcement post itself [1] says "This version is for 
testing purposes. It’s not currently advised to use it in production."  

Maybe this is overcautious?  Opinions welcome.


If we do stick with the stable branch, we are probably stuck with it until 
next May [2].  So now the question is: for the "former extras" build-deps -- 
how do we co-exist the KDE4 and KF5 versions?   Can the lib packages be made 
co-installable?  Is there a package naming convention? 

From a quick build of libkface 15.04 (KDE4) and 15.12 (KF5) I can see the 
libraries are named differently (libkface.so / libKF5KFace.so).  This gives me 
hope that at least the libs can remain co-installable.  Additionally, the 
includes are in separate sub-dirs of /usr/include so maybe even the -dev 
packages can be co-installable?

Thoughts / advice?

Thanks,
-Steve

[1] https://www.digikam.org/node/749
[2] https://www.digikam.org/about/releaseplan



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk