E-Mail von Albert Astals Cid vom Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2024, 11:19:21 MEZ: > El divendres, 6 de desembre del 2024, a les 13:58:01 (Hora estàndard del > Centre d’Europa), Tobias Leupold va escriure: > > E-Mail von Heiko Becker vom Freitag, 6. Dezember 2024, 13:50:51 MEZ: > > > On Friday, 6 December 2024 12:08:46 CET, Christophe Marin wrote: > > > > Slightly related to this release, packagers need to know what to do with > > > > packages depending on Qt 5 and marble: > > > > > > > > - kgeotag (1.6.0 release only supports KF5/Qt5) > > > > - kphotoalbum (5.13 release only supports KF5/Qt5, but the > > > > marble dependency > > > > is optional) > > > > - kexi (no release for the past 5 years) > > > > > > Just to add some piece of information here, because one could get the > > > impression that Marble is a hard dependency of kexi. Actually it's > > > optional > > > as well. And while the current release searches for (Kexi)Marble, the > > > respective subdir is commented out (and still is in git master), so I'd > > > say > > > it doesn't depend on marble at all the moment. > > > > > > > - kreport (no release for the past 5 years) > > > > > > It's an optional dependency there, too. > > > > > > > I'm not expecting users will notice if we drop kexi and kreport, but > > > > having > > > > > > solutions for the other ones before the 24.12 release would be nice. > > > > > > Seems we're not particular good at foreseeing such things... > > > Six days isn't much time, but I added Tobias in CC to hear if a soonish > > > release of a Qt6-based kgeotag may be realistic. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Heiko > > > > PS: Maybe also important: The next KGeoTag release will be buildable both > > against Qt6/KF6 as well as Qt5/KF5, whereas the next KPA release will be > > Qt6/ KF6-only. > > Unless you really really have a reason to support both Qt5 and Qt6 (i.e. it's > a plugin or library) I would really suggest you support just one (Qt6 > preferably).
Hi Albert, for KGeoTag, it was no big deal to keep it compatible with both Qt 5 and Qt 6 (not so for KPA), so I thought it wouldn't hurt for now? At least as long as I can still use Qt 5 on my Gentoo box or using some LTS distro VM (like the oldest still-maintained Ubuntu or such, the plan was to support Qt 5 until Ubuntu LTS is Qt-6-based if possible). Of course it would be no problem to drop Qt 5 compatibility with the next release, this would strip down to removing the respective parts of CMakeLists.txt along with that one QT_VERSION_CHECK macro call in main.cpp I needed. But just to understand the reasoning: Why is it bad to still support Qt 5 if it's possible without noteworthy effort? Cheers, Tobias > Cheers, > Albert
