On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:37 AM Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2025-11-26, Ben Cooksley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 10:16 PM Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 2025-11-25, Albert Astals Cid <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > B) KDE Frameworks shall compile with the major compilers: gcc, clang > and > >> > msvc(for Frameworks that claim Windows support) > >> > >> mingw as well, please :) > >> > > > > No thanks. Mingw is awful to support and I've been pushing for a while > that > > we should drop supporting it. > > > > The only reason it is around is because we have autotools based > > dependencies, and the correct fix for those is to either get the > dependency > > to use a real build system or to drop them in favour of something that is > > reasonable. > > Anything requiring QtWebEngine cannot be built with MingW anyway. > > Luckily most of our frameworks doesn't require qtwebengine. > > I need mingw support in many frameworks for <reasons> - and I do think > that we should support using a compile we can actually investigate as > needed even on the non-free platforms we support. > > I'd love to get mingw support back in our CI stack, but I guess we have > limited machine capacity. > There would be quite limited value as MingW wouldn't pick anything new up aside from issues with just that compiler. MingW on Windows itself is also a pain to manage from a systems perspective. We also lack folks to care about Windows support in general - and most of the effort is focused on MSVC as we do have applications (including those in the PIM stack) that require WebEngine. Available hardware is part of the issue as well, but that is much more solveable than available people - which is the primary issue. > /Sune > - who is frequently mingw cross compiling okular and kleopatra and > everything they need > > > Thanks, Ben
