On 7/26/2022 10:08 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: > Le Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:57:00PM +0000, Brian Callahan a écrit : >> On 7/26/2022 9:43 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: >>> Le Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 12:20:03PM +0200, Caspar Schutijser a écrit : >>>> I build-tested this and also did some runtime testing of Calibre and >>>> that seems to work fine. So in that sense it's OK. But the veusz >>>> problem is still there, right? I looked around in some other ports >>>> collections but I've not been able to find a patch we can borrow. So >>>> I guess someone actually has to look at the problem. Don't have time >>>> for that myself right now. >>> >>> there's an example on >>> https://github.com/veusz/veusz/issues/595#issuecomment-1193392261 but it >>> looks... only for sip wizards. >>> >>> bcallah, what's your opinion as math/veusz maintainer ? >>> >>> Landry >>> >> >> I won't be able to look at this until the weekend. I will have to become >> a sip wizard I suppose. >> >> If the py-qt5 update needs to go in and veusz is the only blocker, I >> suppose we can mark veusz BROKEN until then. I know it's not ideal, but >> I don't see a better option in that case. > > I wouldnt say it 'needs to go in' but usually they're a large pain as > several ports (sip,qscintilla,pyqt...) have to be updated altogether and > all the consumers need to bec checked, rafael did the hard work and > usually if those diffs accumulate they tend to get stale/conflicts and > the person doing the work loses motivation :) > > Landry
That sounds close enough to "needs to go in" for me :) Let's get py-qt5 in, mark veusz as BROKEN and I'll do my best to make the length of time veusz is broken as short as possible. ~Brian
