[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Qt 6 on X32 and HPPA ports: upstream requiring proof of usage

Hi Paul!

El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 14:35:40 -03 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 
> Hi Lisandro!
> 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. 

> 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.

Not for Qt 6... for now.

> 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?

Code maintenance. If they are not testing it on their CI and they do not find 
real users of the code, they will simply remove it. We might or not agree with 
them, but that's their code so their policies.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: