Hi James! On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 06:40:35PM +0000, James Addison wrote: > Followup-For: Bug #1059631 > X-Debbugs-Cc: mitya57@debian.org > > Hi Dmitry - could you recommend whether there's anything I should do next for > this bug? > > As context: the patch was accepted upstream, but with modifications that make > it cleaner for Qt6.6 albeit in a non-5.15.x compatible way. I realize that > might not be ideal maintainence-wise; sorry about that. I'm a bit unclear on > the licensing status of 5.15.x and that's making me uncertain about whether to > offer another patch for that lineage upstream. > > My sense is that with the patch here and also the patch from #1059592 applied, > we would see at least eight qt-related packages in Debian building with more > reliable reproducibility. Not a huge number, but it's becoming rarer to find > fixups like this that benefit multiple dependent packages (a good thing). I was going to include these patches together with Qt 5.15.12 transition, which I am currently preparing. But if you want it in unstable sooner, I can do a new upload for 5.15.10 and then merge into my 5.15.12 branch. Just let me know if you need that. -- Dmitry Shachnev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature