Hi, Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2020, 22:25:32 CET schrieb David Faure: > Just a data point on this discussion. Every time we raise the min Qt > version, we make life easier for KDE developers, and harder for others who > might be thinking of integrating a framework into their project. > > Just today I tried using a KF5 library to extend a single plugin in an > existing webserver (which I don't control, and which is mostly written in > python) [1]. That server is entirely set up with a docker environment on top > of... debian buster, which has Qt 5.11.3. > Fail. > I'm going to have to apply a patch to the KF5 library as part of the > Dockerfile, to port it back to Qt 5.11. No way I can convince them to change > the base distribution, all I'll get as a reply is to port away from QtCore. > > Obviously the 5.11 ship has sailed by now, and I know we can't support old > versions forever, but this kind of experience makes me very wary of raising > requirements too fast.
I am reading an objection to the proposed bump in these words, am I correct in doing that? Given you being KF release worker/manager and all your merits with KF, and also given no-one else so far has commented on this. I would accept that then and drop my request to adapt the current Qt compatibility road map. I tested the waters at least. Though please those who want to support Qt 5.13 for some more time, consider adding support for KDE CI then. It leaves a bad feeling in my stomach that KF 5.77+ seems effectively for Qt 5.13 with a sticker "Good Luck!" right now. I fear that lowers the image with (potential) KF consumers, it does at least with me for other projects. I (and possibly many other KF contributors) have no way to test against Qt 5.13, so might introduce regressions/break things in the future, which feels bad :/ Cheers Friedrich
