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

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <[email protected]> Thu, 02 Feb 2023 16:36:36 -0300

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.kde.talk,gmane.linux.debian.ports.hppa
Message-ID	<1927230.PYKUYFuaPT@gryffindor>

El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 16:23:30 -03 John David Anglin escribió:
> On 2023-02-02 2:01 p.m., Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribió:
> >> On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> >>> El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:
> >>> [snip]
> >>> 
> >>>>> Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has
> >>>>> active
> >>>>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
> >>>> 
> >>>> At
> >>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_
> >>>> 87
> >>>> ce
> >>>> d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
> >>>> Docker setup. That could be a start.
> >>> 
> >>> I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they
> >>> will
> >>> want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring
> >>> it :-/
> >> 
> >> I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support
> >> hppa.
> >> 
> >>> I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on
> >>> this.
> >> 
> >> Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy
> >> with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
> >> as it seemed trivial.
> >> Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
> >> possible.
> > 
> > Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for
> > it (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
> 
> That's being snarky.  qt6-base came out of experimental on 2022-12-30.

Qt 6 has been available in unstable since almost a year.

> It's full of 32-bit issues
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030315
> 
> But the main problem is linking a shared object against a non-PIC archive
> library.
> 
> I was the one that provided the Q_PROCESSOR defines.  At that time the
> package built successfully.
> 
> I assume this is about money (Commercial contract support).

No, in fact the qtcore maintainer, the one asking for images, does not even 
works for TQtC. He just wants to keep code that is really being in use, and he 
asks for this for non-common archs.

-- 
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)