Re: Minimum dependency versions
On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 22:48:53 GMT Pierre wrote: > 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? Hm... Not super sure, but given the amount of effort we'll need to pour into that anyway, would it make sense for us to split off a Calligra 4 branch for Qt6 work at this point (or call master that branch, and put v3 into a branch)? Or does that seem premature, and perhaps it would make more sense for preparation work to be done on a branch with a Qt 5.15 requirement? (which supposedly will make the port to qt6 simpler when it does happen) I realise that's not answering any questions, but also it feels like probably a decision we'll really want to be making sooner rather than later, so we can avoid time passing us by again... -- ..dan / leinir.. http://leinir.dk/
Re: Minimum dependency versions
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le mercredi, février 10, 2021 11:48 PM, Pierre a écrit : > 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? 5.12 looks like a good target for me since it is what is supported by both Ubuntu 20.04 and openSUSE Leap.
Re: Minimum dependency versions
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le jeudi, février 11, 2021 10:50 AM, Dan Leinir Turthra Jensen a écrit : > On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 22:48:53 GMT Pierre wrote: > > > 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? > > Hm... Not super sure, but given the amount of effort we'll need to pour into > that anyway, would it make sense for us to split off a Calligra 4 branch for > Qt6 work at this point (or call master that branch, and put v3 into a branch)? > Or does that seem premature, and perhaps it would make more sense for > preparation work to be done on a branch with a Qt 5.15 requirement? (which > supposedly will make the port to qt6 simpler when it does happen) > I realise that's not answering any questions, but also it feels like > probably a decision we'll really want to be making sooner rather than later, > so we can avoid time passing us by again... IHMO thinking about porting to Qt 6 is a bit premature considering the state of Calligra, KF6 and Qt6. Let's first try to port to a recent Qt5 version before thinking about :) > > > > ..dan / leinir.. > http://leinir.dk/
Re: Minimum dependency versions
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:39:35 PM CET 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 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Minimum dependency versions
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 wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:39:35 PM CET 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 > > 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
Code for msoscheme?
Hello I am looking at several warnings in the code generated by msoscheme in the libmso filters. The fix should be easy, but I can not find the the msoscheme source code. The url we have is on gitorious.org. Does somebody have a more uptodate location for this code, or should we consider it lost? Regards Pierre signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Code for msoscheme?
On donderdag 11 februari 2021 21:40:19 CET Pierre wrote: > Hello Hi Pierre! > I am looking at several warnings in the code generated by msoscheme in the > libmso filters. The fix should be easy, but I can not find the the msoscheme > source code. The url we have is on gitorious.org. > Does somebody have a more uptodate location for this code, or should we > consider it lost? No, it's in invent.kde.org. https://invent.kde.org/libraries/binschema ⤳Jos signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Code for msoscheme?
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:45:01 PM CET you wrote: > On donderdag 11 februari 2021 21:40:19 CET Pierre wrote: > > Hello > > Hi Pierre! > > > I am looking at several warnings in the code generated by msoscheme in the > > libmso filters. The fix should be easy, but I can not find the the > > msoscheme source code. The url we have is on gitorious.org. > > Does somebody have a more uptodate location for this code, or should we > > consider it lost? > > No, it's in invent.kde.org. > > https://invent.kde.org/libraries/binschema > > ⤳Jos Thanks! Here you go then: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/binschema/-/merge_requests/1 :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
