Minimum dependency versions

[Pierre]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:39:35 PM CET Carl Schwan wrote:
> Le mercredi, février 10, 2021 7:45 PM, Pierre <pinaraf at pinaraf.info> a 
écrit :
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:30:43 AM CET Adam Pigg wrote:
> > > I wish!!! ... try qt 5.6!
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 08:14, Halla Rempt boud at valdyas.org wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 10 February 2021 08:44:54 CET Pierre wrote:
> > > > > Is there a lot of people still trying to build Calligra with Qt 5.3
> > > > > or
> > > > > KF5
> > > > > 5.7.0 ? These are years old, and I guess building Calligra with them
> > > > > has
> > > > > been untested for some time.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that the Jolla people still build the documents application
> > > > with
> > > > Qt 5.9.
> > > > --
> > > > https://www.krita.org
> > 
> > I created this MR then :
> > https://invent.kde.org/office/calligra/-/merge_requests/10
> > 
> > At least it's no longer Qt 5.3 / KF 5.7, and a bunch of deprecated stuff
> > is
> > cleaned up (I built locally disabling deprecated Qt APIs).
> > 
> > But Jolla decided to stay at Qt 5.6 out of fear from LGPLv3, as far as I
> > understand. Does it means Calligra would have to be stuck in an untested
> > setup? I no longer have a Jolla phone, do they update from Calligra
> > frequently? And is there a lot of people still building with Qt 5.6 and
> > testing so we are sure there is no regressions there?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Your MR looks good to me. Concerning the minimum version requirement, I
> worked a bit last year to remove a lot of warnings and I was blocked to
> move further by the minimum requirements.
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure if it is worth continuing to support Qt 5.6.
> Calligra can't continue to use on Qt 5.6 as the minimum required version
> for years when we are moving to Qt 6 in a timespan of 1 or 2 years with the
> rest of KDE. Also as you said I'm not sure anyone is testing regressions
> and the Gemini QML code is definitively using Qt 5.12 only code. Jolla
> needs to move forwards with their LGPLv3 problem or they will end up
> obsolete compared to the rest of the Qt world.
> 
> I would propose moving all the way to Qt 5.12 or even 5.15, so we can start
> fixing deprecations in time for Qt6. And maybe in the second step, we should
> consider moving to C++17 too.
> 
> Regards,
> Carl

Hi

Since there seems to be an agreement on at least Qt 5.6, if you don't mind, I 
will go forward and merge my MR.
The question remains regarding Qt 5.12 or later. From a technical perspective, 
I'll have a look at the impact of requesting this version as a minimum. But 
the question of our behaviour/relationship with Jolla remains. A Jolla 
developer commneted on my MR to thank us for keeping it to Qt 5.6. Does 
anybody here have an insight regarding their upgrade plan? They can't stay on 
Qt5.6 forever, at some point no community has to carry the burden of their 
decisions…

Regards

 Pierre
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/calligra-devel/attachments/20210211/9eca9fc1/attachment.sig>