Well, theyre doing a good job of appearing to stay on Qt 5.6 forever, its been a source of developer contention for some time! :D
Hopefully there will be some resolution to everyone's satisfaction at some time! On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 17:22, Pierre <pina...@pinaraf.info> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:39:35 PM CET Carl Schwan wrote: > > Le mercredi, février 10, 2021 7:45 PM, Pierre <pina...@pinaraf.info> a > écrit : > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:30:43 AM CET Adam Pigg wrote: > > > > I wish!!! ... try qt 5.6! > > > > > > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 08:14, Halla Rempt b...@valdyas.org wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 08:44:54 CET Pierre wrote: > > > > > > Is there a lot of people still trying to build Calligra with Qt 5.3 > > > > > > or > > > > > > KF5 > > > > > > 5.7.0 ? These are years old, and I guess building Calligra with them > > > > > > has > > > > > > been untested for some time. > > > > > > > > > > I think that the Jolla people still build the documents application > > > > > with > > > > > Qt 5.9. > > > > > -- > > > > > https://www.krita.org > > > > > > I created this MR then : > > > https://invent.kde.org/office/calligra/-/merge_requests/10 > > > > > > At least it's no longer Qt 5.3 / KF 5.7, and a bunch of deprecated stuff > > > is > > > cleaned up (I built locally disabling deprecated Qt APIs). > > > > > > But Jolla decided to stay at Qt 5.6 out of fear from LGPLv3, as far as I > > > understand. Does it means Calligra would have to be stuck in an untested > > > setup? I no longer have a Jolla phone, do they update from Calligra > > > frequently? And is there a lot of people still building with Qt 5.6 and > > > testing so we are sure there is no regressions there? > > > > Hi, > > > > Your MR looks good to me. Concerning the minimum version requirement, I > > worked a bit last year to remove a lot of warnings and I was blocked to > > move further by the minimum requirements. > > > > Personally, I'm not sure if it is worth continuing to support Qt 5.6. > > Calligra can't continue to use on Qt 5.6 as the minimum required version > > for years when we are moving to Qt 6 in a timespan of 1 or 2 years with the > > rest of KDE. Also as you said I'm not sure anyone is testing regressions > > and the Gemini QML code is definitively using Qt 5.12 only code. Jolla > > needs to move forwards with their LGPLv3 problem or they will end up > > obsolete compared to the rest of the Qt world. > > > > I would propose moving all the way to Qt 5.12 or even 5.15, so we can start > > fixing deprecations in time for Qt6. And maybe in the second step, we should > > consider moving to C++17 too. > > > > Regards, > > Carl > > Hi > > Since there seems to be an agreement on at least Qt 5.6, if you don't mind, I > will go forward and merge my MR. > The question remains regarding Qt 5.12 or later. From a technical perspective, > I'll have a look at the impact of requesting this version as a minimum. But > the question of our behaviour/relationship with Jolla remains. A Jolla > developer commneted on my MR to thank us for keeping it to Qt 5.6. Does > anybody here have an insight regarding their upgrade plan? They can't stay on > Qt5.6 forever, at some point no community has to carry the burden of their > decisions… > > Regards > > Pierre
