Not from KDE neon of course, we're on 5.15. And not from the KDE snaps build either. But I suppose there's more than just Linux distros to consider as we ship apps using KDE frameworks on Flatpak, Android, Windows, even Mac to ponder too.
Jonathan On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 12:14, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <kosse...@kde.org> wrote: > Hi, > > last week KDE Frameworks master saw a bump in the required/expected > minimal Qt > version to Qt 5.13, following rules once agreed and noted here: > https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_Qt_requirements > > I would like to challenge that former decision though and propose to > instead > go straight to Qt 5.14 as minimum requirement now. > > > QUESTION: > Would any of the distributions have an issue with requiring Qt 5.14 > instead of > Qt 5.13? > > > From some quick checks using https://repology.org/ it seems that any > distribution versions which currently use Qt 5.13 have also settled on > some > older KF version, so will not update to just KF 5.77 and thus be screwed. > > Motivation: > * KDE CI not setup ATM to cover builds with Qt 5.13 (no build, no unit > tests) > * Qt 5.14 added some new API, chance to miss out when using that in new > code > * C++: no need to write #if QT_VERSION < QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 14, 0) > variants > * QML: no need to do hard-to-read generation tricks to support < Qt 5.14 > * Qt 5.13 went out-of-support in June > * App bundle builders would rather use some recent Qt 5.14/5.15 > > So by restraining to Qt 5.13 as minimum version IMHO we would make/keep > life > complicated for KF contributors without adding any value for anyone. > > With most of KDE Frameworks in my local checkout: > grep "QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 14, 0)" frameworks/*/src -r 2>/dev/null | \ > grep "QT_VERSION " | wc -l > gives me "92", so there are quite some code variants which need support in > current code. > > From the emails at least in > https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2020-July/112712.html > I could not see a discussion whether Qt 5.13 makes > sense at all now, seems mainly the algorithm was applied. I propose to > match > the result to known real world needs now. Or teach me what I have missed > here > :) > > Cheers > Friedrich > > >
