Tracking Poppler master on binary factory

[Aleix Pol]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:59 AM Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:
>
> On Friday, 4 October 2019 00:35:11 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El dijous, 3 d’octubre de 2019, a les 10:55:52 CEST, Volker Krause va
> escriure:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm looking into the build issue of KDE Itinerary on Android on binary
> > > factory
> > > (https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/Android/job/Itinerary_android/).
> > >
> > > The problem is the following: Itinerary uses unstable Poppler API, Poppler
> > > changed that API in its master (but not its version number yet), Itinerary
> > > has been adapted but that would only start to take effect once the
> > > Poppler version number is bumped. So, with binary factory tracking
> > > Poppler master we now have a combination that doesn't build.
> > >
> > > I see three possible solutions:
> > > (1) Itinerary doesn't #ifdef by Poppler version but implements actual
> > > configure checks that test for the API differences by trying to compile
> > > corresponding code snippets.
> > > (2) Binary factory tracks the latest Poppler release instead of master.
> > > (3) Poppler bumps its version numbers right after instead of right before
> > > a
> > > release.
> >
> > The question is more, that is that CI job for? Is it something we want to
> > give people so they use? Then it should not be using poppler master, i mean
> > we poppler devs try not to break things, but it makes much sense to use a
> > stable version if it's something you give to people to use.
> >
> > If the CI job is there to catch this things, then 2 doesn't help.
>
> Right. Since this tracks master of the KDE repos too, I'd not assume this is
> something for normal use, rather something for integration testing of all the
> involved components.
>
> > My problem with 3 is that bumping the release early can result in people
> > saying "but i have version X" when they really don't. But maybe that's
> > going to be 0.1 people in the whole world :D
>
> Good point, that could be a problem. But wouldn't this happen the other way
> around too, ie. people claiming they are on X - 1 while they are already
> somewhere halfway on the way towards X?
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> > > How do we want to proceed? I can do (1), but that is quite some short
> > > lived
> > > work that will only ever be useful until the next Poppler release. I lack
> > > insight on whether (2) and (3) would be possible and/or how much work that
> > > would be.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Volker
>

That's why we usually do the .90 minor version trick, no?

Aleix