El viernes, 11 de mayo de 2018 06:48:23 -03 Dmitry Shachnev escribió: > Hi all, > > First of all, thanks Raphaël and Sophie for working on PySide2 packaging! Same here! > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:25:57AM +0200, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > > > Should it go in "Qt" or "Qt extras"? It's going to be something official > > > by > > > the upstream Qt project so I think that "Qt" might be good. > > > > Right, but please take into account that the packages maintained under the > > qt tree use a debian directory only packaging branch, and in general, they > > use all the same packaging structure (no dpm, no upstream branches or tags > > in the public repos, etc). This set of rules is more relaxed in qt-extras > > and kde-extras. > > It looks like pyside2 will use the same release cycle as Qt uses, so we > will most likely have to update it together with the other Qt modules. > > It would be a bit easier for us if you put it into the Qt namespace and > followed our packaging scheme (debian/ only repository), but Qt extras and > whatever repo structure should work too. It is worth to note that pyside2 will probably use some Qt's private headers. If that's true: - We try to avoid exporting (aka: creating a binary package shipping) private headers as much as possible. They are problematic as any unstable API/ABI can be. - We only ship those that are needed by Qt submodules themselves, and so far have been refusing to ship more. - If Pyside2 uses private headers it will end up depending in qt<foo>-abi-x-y- z, that's the way we track packages using private headers (which includes qt submodules) and allows us to do very smooth transitions whenever possible. That only means that it will need to get rebuilt whenever we ship a new upstream version. General info: due to transitions, manpower and number of bugs we normally skip 5.x.0 and even patch releases in unstable. In other words we tend to ship 5.x. 1 and 5.x.3 at most (upstream rarely does .3 releases anyways). Sometimes we start packing .0 and even releases in experimental, to reduce the work needed when a suitable release is about to come. All that being said, if the package is kept under qt/ following our repo style it's easier for us to jump in in case it's needed (for example, if we are ready for a transition). I can't say if anyone will be able to do it if kept under qt-extras and using gbp or alike (I personally don't use nor expect to use gbp, for example). > > Also, I don't see in the bug log any comment about the current pyside > > maintenance, are the pyside maintainers ok with moving the new version of > > the project to a different repository in a different team? > > As far as I know, there are no current pyside 1.x maintainers. So there is > nobody who can complain about this move. Right. I think all is needed to create the repo is knowing which namespace you will prefer: qt or qt-extras. Of course, please feel free to ask any questions you might have. Once again, thanks! -- Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done for me? -- Groucho Marx Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.