KDE Gear projects with failing CI (master) (21 January 2025)

[Ben Cooksley]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 7:21 AM Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:

> On Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2025 18:52:46 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Ben
> Cooksley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 5:49 AM Volker Krause <vkrause at kde.org> wrote:
> > > On Dienstag, 21. Januar 2025 23:11:56 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit
> Albert
> > >
> > > Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > neochat - NEW
> > > >
> > > >  * https://invent.kde.org/network/neochat/-/pipelines/869365
> > > >
> > > >   * flatpak build fails
> > >
> > > Same as https://invent.kde.org/network/neochat/-/merge_requests/2127 I
> > > guess,
> > > looks like an API change in libQuotient with the corresponding version
> > > change
> > > still pending (ie. a similar problem we occasionally hit with Poppler).
> > >
> > > The quick solution for this would probably be (temporarily) switching
> > > Flatpak
> > > to the latest release of libQuotient. The IMHO proper solution would
> be to
> > > have version bumps at the beginning of a development cycle that changes
> > > API.
> >
> > This also raises another question though - should we be strongly
> > discouraging use of heavily moving targets like upstream dev / master
> > branches and instead favouring the use of stable branches?
> > Not really ideal if upstream can essentially break our builds without us
> > doing anything.
>
> I can't comment on NeoChat, but for Itinerary the builds against the
> latest
> versions of essential (external) dependencies with varying
> intentions/success
> in keeping backward compatibility (ZXing, Poppler, Quotient) are very much
> deliberate, to catch breakage/regressions early (same as we are now doing
> for
> KF with Qt pre-releases).
>
> And this is actually working, NeoChat has been fixed to build with the
> upcoming
> Quotient version, same for Itinerary/Poppler. The only thing we are
> missing
> for those fixes to take effect is those dependencies bumping their version
> numbers.
>
> We could work around that by doing configure-time detection using a
> compile
> test, but that's a lot of extra work, so we'd better try to address this
> upstream first.


> I'd very much suggest the use of release tarballs (or stable branches) for
> apps that aren't continuously monitoring their dependencies this way
> though,
> but I'm not aware we have such a case.
>

Doesn't this interfere somewhat with the long term eventual goal of us
pushing Flatpak binaries directly to Flathub though?
(not to mention make stable branch builds impossible to reproduce in the
long run)


>
> Regards,
> Volker


Cheers,
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-devel/attachments/20250123/ac5db8a8/attachment.htm>