<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>with my KDE Android hat on this would be fine, we use Qt 5.15.
For KDE's own Windows/Mac builds I'd expect it to be similar.<br>
</p>
<p>What most/all not-traditional-Linux-distro users have in common
is that they are not bound to the specific Qt version decided and
shipped by a vendor and instead either build themselves or
download official binaries.</p>
<p>The two major "distributions" that are potential frameworks users
but can't because of Qt versions (SailfishOS and Ubuntu Touch)
don't ship 5.13 either, so it doesn't make the problem worse.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Nico</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/1/20 1:29 PM, Jonathan Riddell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANX=XXOc87mVo6z1DFw2xWs4580qSVeNXvdY7QE2DOcWG3CzCw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Not from KDE neon of course, we're on 5.15. And not from
the KDE snaps build either. But I suppose there's more than
just Linux distros to consider as we ship apps using KDE
frameworks on Flatpak, Android, Windows, even Mac to ponder
too.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 12:14,
Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <<a href="mailto:kossebau@kde.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">kossebau@kde.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
last week KDE Frameworks master saw a bump in the
required/expected minimal Qt <br>
version to Qt 5.13, following rules once agreed and noted
here:<br>
<a
href="https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_Qt_requirements"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_Qt_requirements</a><br>
<br>
I would like to challenge that former decision though and
propose to instead <br>
go straight to Qt 5.14 as minimum requirement now.<br>
<br>
<br>
QUESTION:<br>
Would any of the distributions have an issue with requiring Qt
5.14 instead of <br>
Qt 5.13?<br>
<br>
<br>
From some quick checks using <a href="https://repology.org/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://repology.org/</a>
it seems that any <br>
distribution versions which currently use Qt 5.13 have also
settled on some <br>
older KF version, so will not update to just KF 5.77 and thus
be screwed.<br>
<br>
Motivation:<br>
* KDE CI not setup ATM to cover builds with Qt 5.13 (no build,
no unit tests)<br>
* Qt 5.14 added some new API, chance to miss out when using
that in new code<br>
* C++: no need to write #if QT_VERSION <
QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 14, 0) variants<br>
* QML: no need to do hard-to-read generation tricks to support
< Qt 5.14<br>
* Qt 5.13 went out-of-support in June<br>
* App bundle builders would rather use some recent Qt
5.14/5.15<br>
<br>
So by restraining to Qt 5.13 as minimum version IMHO we would
make/keep life <br>
complicated for KF contributors without adding any value for
anyone.<br>
<br>
With most of KDE Frameworks in my local checkout:<br>
grep "QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 14, 0)" frameworks/*/src -r
2>/dev/null | \<br>
grep "QT_VERSION " | wc -l<br>
gives me "92", so there are quite some code variants which
need support in <br>
current code.<br>
<br>
From the emails at least in <a
href="https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2020-July/112712.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2020-July/112712.html</a>
I could not see a discussion whether Qt 5.13 makes <br>
sense at all now, seems mainly the algorithm was applied. I
propose to match <br>
the result to known real world needs now. Or teach me what I
have missed here <br>
:)<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Friedrich<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>