Re: Minimum dependency versions
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
Re: Minimum dependency versions
I wish!!! ... try qt 5.6! On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 08:14, Halla Rempt 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 > >
Re: Minimum dependency versions
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:13:49 AM CET Halla Rempt 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. Then Qt 5.9 instead of 5.3? At least we would come back into the easy-to-find- documentation level :) Do you have any insight about the KF5 version they use? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Minimum dependency versions
Hi Pierre Long time no see indeed I myself is only reading mails and answering some reviews now and then. Camilla On 10/02/2021 08.45.13, Pierre wrote: Hello friends Long time no see, how are you all? Life and health have kept me away from this project for too long, but as you may have seen from the merge requests in gitlab I am trying to come back a bit. I am looking at the build warnings right now, and a lot of them are about deprecations, that's easy to fix so I will look into them (this may also ease future Qt6 transition, who knows). But the current minimum version requirements from CMakeLists.txt are a bit low. 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. May I suggest updating to Qt 5.12 / KF5 5.60 ? This would be a first step, and will make it easier to fix deprecation warnings in a way that should work with all supported Qt and KF5 versions. Regards Pierre Ducroquet
Re: Minimum dependency versions
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 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? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Minimum dependency versions
Le mercredi, février 10, 2021 7:45 PM, Pierre 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
Re: Minimum dependency versions
I agree let's move ahead. We can't be defined by what Jolla does and needs However let's only do it if development is going to pick up. No need to annoy Jolla and then for everything to stall. On 10/02/2021 20.39.59, Carl Schwan wrote: Le mercredi, février 10, 2021 7:45 PM, Pierre 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
Re: Minimum dependency versions
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:45:23 PM CET Camilla Boemann wrote: > I agree let's move ahead. We can't be defined by what Jolla does and needs > > However let's only do it if development is going to pick up. No need to > annoy Jolla and then for everything to stall. Well if everything stalls, it won't be an issue for them since they won't have much to gain from updating anyway… Should we proceed one LTS at a time, or just jump to 5.12, disable deprecated APIs and move forward from there? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
