Upstream has just required us for a proof that Qt 6 is being in use in your ports:
<https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/437349/comments/ cb357b65_46e7edcd>
If the outcome is "not working" or "not really being in use" they will probably remove support from upstream's source code.
What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image of Qt 6 working on them?
Hi Lisandro!wrote:
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 13:48 -0300, Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer
Upstream has just required us for a proof that Qt 6 is being in use in
your
ports:
<https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/437349/comments/ cb357b65_46e7edcd>
If the outcome is "not working" or "not really being in use" they will probably remove support from upstream's source code.
What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image of Qt 6 working on them?
I'm not sure what they consider �support�, there are some pre-processor definitions in the code which hardly can be considered a maintenance
burden. Or are they going to start adding large chunks of architecture-specific code? Not sure I understand the motivation behind the question.
Besides that, the problem with Qt in this context are the large number of reverse dependencies. If you break Qt on a given architecture, you will
also break packages such as Subversion and Git since they have transitive dependencies on Qt.
I don't think intentionally breaking Qt on a given architecture just because a maintainer doesn't want to �maintain� a few lines of pre-processor code
for it can be considered good spirit.
Why would they do that?
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribi�:
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active >>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87 >> ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
Docker setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiringI think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support hppa.
it :-/
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this.
Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is possible.
On 2 Feb 2023, at 17:44, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Paul!
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 14:35:40 -03 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz escribió:
Hi Lisandro!wrote:
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 13:48 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
Upstream has just required us for a proof that Qt 6 is being in use in
your
ports:
<https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/437349/comments/
cb357b65_46e7edcd>
If the outcome is "not working" or "not really being in use" they will
probably remove support from upstream's source code.
What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image >>> of Qt 6 working on them?
I'm not sure what they consider »support«, there are some pre-processor
definitions in the code which hardly can be considered a maintenance
burden. Or are they going to start adding large chunks of
architecture-specific code? Not sure I understand the motivation behind the >> question.
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active users, no matter how short/long it can be.
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active >>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87ce >> d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their Docker >> setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will want
to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring it :-/
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this.
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87ce d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their Docker setup. That could be a start.
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribió:That's being snarky. qt6-base came out of experimental on 2022-12-30.
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support
[snip]
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will >>> want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring >>> it :-/Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active >>>>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87 >>>> ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
Docker setup. That could be a start.
hppa.
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this. >> Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busywith other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
possible.
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribió:
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active >>>>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87 >>>> ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
Docker setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will >>> want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring >>> it :-/
hppa.
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this. >>Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy
with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
possible.
Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
On 2 Feb 2023, at 19:01, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribió:
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active >>>>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87 >>>> ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
Docker setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will >>> want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring >>> it :-/
hppa.
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this. >>Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy
with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
possible.
Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
I assume this is about money (Commercial contract support).
By the way, someone showed me https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2023-February/043594.htm l, But we should probably talk about that and other hassle on libc-alpha or the new distributions ML ;)
On 2 Feb 2023, at 19:01, Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:>
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribi�:
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribi�:
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has
active
users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_ >>>> 87
ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their >>>> Docker setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they
will
want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring >>> it :-/
I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support >> hppa.
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on
this.
Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy >> with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it >> as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
possible.
Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
Someone in #gentoo-hppa a few days ago got a KDE Plasma desktop running, believe it or not ;)
As for Debian: I guess Helge means "new build fails", not "the package isn't available".
Debian users do not build from source usually, so they wouldn't notice a problem.
On 2023-02-02 2:01 p.m., Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribi�:
On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer wrote:
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribi�:
[snip]
Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has
active
users, no matter how short/long it can be.
At
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_ >>>> 87
ce
d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their >>>> Docker setup. That could be a start.
I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they
will
want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring >>> it :-/
I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support >> hppa.
I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on
this.
Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy >> with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it >> as it seemed trivial.
Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
possible.
Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
That's being snarky. qt6-base came out of experimental on 2022-12-30.
It's full of 32-bit issues https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030315
But the main problem is linking a shared object against a non-PIC archive library.
I was the one that provided the Q_PROCESSOR defines. At that time the package built successfully.
I assume this is about money (Commercial contract support).
I assume this is about money (Commercial contract support).
No, in fact the qtcore maintainer, the one asking for images, does not even >works for TQtC.
What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image of >Qt 6 working on them?
El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 16:25:17 -03 Sam James escribi�:
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2023-February/043594.html
Ha! Thiago is the one asking for the images. Fix the patch on HPPA/X32 and
he will probably just keep the status -quo ;-)
Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer dixit:[snip]
What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image >of Qt 6 working on them?
(Note I haven’t been a porter for x32 for a while though I may
still jump in occasionally.)
I wasn’t even aware that Qt6 in Debian is a thing, given your
mail from a year or two ago writing that you have no intent to
package it, let alone that anything is using it. I do see that
qjackctl is apparently using it… colour me surprised. I mostly
switched from sid to bullseye though to avoid UsrMove.
I’d love to provide a working image of it but qt6-base does not
build on x32 because it attempts to use amd64-specific inline
assembly code and (rightfully) this fails. Apparently it hasn’t
been ported to x32 yet.
I *have* successfully used Qt5 on x32 for a long time, e.g.
with musescore{2,3}, if that helps.
I wasn’t even aware that Qt6 in Debian is a thing, given your
mail from a year or two ago writing that you have no intent to
The main Qt maintainer is Patrick Franz, I'm just taking care of backports and >some stuff here and there, sometimes as liason between upstream and Debian.
Thanks for the feedback!
On 3 Feb 2023, at 11:25, Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
Sam James dixit:
By the way, someone showed me
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2023-February/043594.html,
This is conflating 32-bit architectures with 32-bit time_t.
Lisandro Dami�n Nicanor P�rez Meyer dixit:
I wasn’t even aware that Qt6 in Debian is a thing, given your
mail from a year or two ago writing that you have no intent to
The main Qt maintainer is Patrick Franz, I'm just taking care of backports >and some stuff here and there, sometimes as liason between upstream and >Debian.Ah okay.
Thanks for the feedback!
If you get Qt6 ported to x32 I’ll gladly test what I’m able to,
even if it’ll be a M-A setup or a chroot, no full “boot into x32”
any more. That won’t be relevant for this, though.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:46:52 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,570 |
| Posted today: | 1 |