On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:13 AM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 5:48 AM Tobias Leupold <t...@stonemx.de> wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > Because it creates drag for the rest of the project infrastructure. > Dropping Qt 5 stuff in infrastructure is a priority since Qt 5 is > effectively unmaintained and it's hard to do if KDE projects aren't > moving to Qt 6. > I'll echo both Albert and Neal's sentiments here. Keeping anything Qt 5 around is essentially dead weight that imposes a variety of not immediately obvious costs which would be better spent focusing on new things rather than keeping Qt 5 on life support. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > Cheers, Ben
