Re: Qt 6 on X32 and HPPA ports: upstream requiring proof of usage

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.hppa
Message-ID <3c854478e90e277e233a390e813c3970af28e280.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Hi Lisandro!

On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 13:48 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Upstream has just required us for a proof that Qt 6 is being in use in your 
> ports:
> 
> <https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/437349/comments/
> cb357b65_46e7edcd>
> 
> If the outcome is "not working" or "not really being in use"  they will 
> probably remove support from upstream's source code.
> 
> What is the current status of Qt 6 in your ports? Can you supply an image of 
> Qt 6 working on them?

I'm not sure what they consider »support«, there are some pre-processor definitions
in the code which hardly can be considered a maintenance burden. Or are they going
to start adding large chunks of architecture-specific code? Not sure I understand
the motivation behind the question.

Besides that, the problem with Qt in this context are the large number of reverse
dependencies. If you break Qt on a given architecture, you will also break packages
such as Subversion and Git since they have transitive dependencies on Qt.

I don't think intentionally breaking Qt on a given architecture just because a maintainer
doesn't want to »maintain« a few lines of pre-processor code for it can be considered
good spirit.

Why would they do that?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.