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

Bug#1081239: marked as done (transition: Qt 6.7.2)

Your message dated Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:07:19 +0100
with message-id <Zx6BV32JLlkCrkYo@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1081239: transition: Qt 6.7.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1081239,
regarding transition: Qt 6.7.2
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1081239: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1081239
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: deltaone@debian.org, debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Hi,

we would like to request a transition for Qt 6.7.2 which is currently in
experimental. This transition will be smaller than the last Qt 6.6.2
transition as we only need to rebuild those packages that depend on
the private headers which should be around 25-30 packages (not counting Qt
packages).

There were no real packaging changes compared to Qt 6.6.2.

I tried to rebuild the reverse dependencies and these failed:

* zeal: FTBFS, bug is filed (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1081227)
  Fix is to upgrade or backport a simple patch.
* qgnomeplatform-qt6: Has FTBFS already before (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1077421)
* pyside6: FTBFS for me but might have been my setup. But there should be
  plenty of upstream support in case that is needed.
* nheko: FTBFS, but that was not a Qt error, likely just my setup.
* pyqt6: Compilation was successful, but test discovery failed (seemed like a 
  Python problem). Again, might have been my setup.

I did not rebuild qtcreator as it is from upstream Qt, so I assume it'll build.
calibre depends on pyqt6, so I didn't rebuild that either.

Here is the Ben file:
---
title = "Qt 6.7.2";
is_affected = .depends ~ /qt6-.*-private-abi \(= 6\.6\.2\)/ | .depends ~ /qt6-.*-private-abi \(= 6\.7\.2\)/;
is_good = .depends ~ /qt6-.*-private-abi \(= 6\.7\.2\)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /qt6-.*-private-abi \(= 6\.6\.2\)/;
---


--
Med vänliga hälsningar

Patrick Franz

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2024-10-23 13:13:41 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 21/10/2024 09:03, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Followup-For: Bug #1081239
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > qtcreator entagles together the Qt 6.7 transition with the
> > llvm-default 19 one, and unfortunately the llvm-default transition is
> > far from moving ahead (yay for uncoordinated and untested
> > transitions...).
> > 
> > To make the Qt transition move forward (since it is practically ready),
> > my recommendation is to temporarily drop qtcreator from testing.
> > Another possibility might be to force the migration without qtcreator,
> > and rebuild qtcreator in testing once Qt 6.7 is migrated; while this
> > might work, I haven't checked it.
> 
> Qtcreator was removed (thanks Sebastian) and I urgented fcitx5-qt, and
> qt6-base was able to migrate in the 1000Z run today.

Closing.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: