[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

> On 2 Feb 2023, at 19:01, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com> 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:
>>> [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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply to: