KDE Frameworks 5.29.0

[Tobias C. Berner]

Hi there

There are still conflicts with the localization files, for example:

 pkg-static: nb-kde5-l10n-16.12.0 conflicts with kf5-ki18n-5.29.0 (installs
files into the same place).  Problematic file:
   /usr/local/share/locale/nb/LC_SCRIPTS/ki18n5/ki18n5.js


I think the one between kdelibs4support and kio is also not yet fixed:

pkg-static: kf5-kdelibs4support-5.29.0 conflicts with kf5-kio-5.29.0
(installs files into the same place).  Problematic file:
/usr/local/share/doc/HTML/ca/kcontrol5/cache/index.cache.bz2



mfg Tobias


On 10 December 2016 at 09:52, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 9:32:13 AM CET David Faure wrote:
> > On mercredi 7 décembre 2016 21:06:11 CET Kevin Funk wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 20:10:40 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > El dimecres, 7 de desembre de 2016, a les 10:08:18 CET, David Faure
> va
> > > >
> > > > escriure:
> > > > > On lundi 5 décembre 2016 18:40:46 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > > > > Am 2016-12-05 09:20, schrieb David Faure:
> > > > > > > On dimanche 4 décembre 2016 23:42:44 CET šumski wrote:
> > > > > > >> On nedjelja, 4. prosinca 2016. 00:37:52 CET David Faure wrote:
> > > > > > >> > Dear packagers,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > KDE Frameworks 5.29.0 has been uploaded to the usual place.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > New framework: prison
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Public release next Saturday.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for the packaging work!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> kconfig (r129382) breaks compilation of kdevplatform:
> > > > > > >> http://paste.opensuse.org/82016854
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed (but it's not the change from RR 129382, it's commit
> > > > > > > cd4e650
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > https://phabricator.kde.org/D3386
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems to come from Inherits=BaseClass while BaseClass doesn't
> use
> > > > > > > arg="true".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's a testcase for the kconfig unittests. Martin, can you
> take
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > look?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The earliest I can have a look is probably on Friday, I'm sorry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My suggestion is to revert my two commits and I'll redo for next
> > > > > > frameworks.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, done. New git tag and tarball:
> > > > >
> > > > > kconfig v5.29.0-rc2
> > > > > 47f7e954a58ba5538d055e2f75e483cade48ee8a
> > > > > d6c12e0908de1b91529de15e75a52c9974685c91b423d5b5abeb06f261d0fa47
> > > > > sources/kconfig-5.29.0.tar.xz
> > > >
> > > > Acoording to kfunk the thing that broke kdevplatform wasn't really
> > > > kconfigs
> > > > fault but a side effect of kdevplatform code not being very good.
> > >
> > > Heya,
> > >
> > > the patch restoring the kdevplatform build with KF5 5.29:
> > >   https://cgit.kde.org/kdevplatform.git/commit/?
> > >
> > > id=e84645d1694bdad7f179cd41babce723fe07aa63
> > >
> > > The code in kdevplatform is a bit special, it's probably the only
> place in
> > > whole KDE which broke due to the recent changes in kconfig. I don't
> see an
> > > easy migration path, even if you introduce said change in a later
> kconfig
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I don't mind if you leave kconfig as-is. But that's probably something
> for
> > > dfaure to decide.
> >
> > Well, the change to kdevplatform isn't released yet, so kconfig 5.29-rc1
> > would break compilation of the current kdevplatform releases.
> >
> > Also, the fact that I'm able to write a kconfig unittest that doesn't
> > compile tells me that something isn't right with these kconfig changes
> ---
> > unless it can be proven that what I'm doing in that new test is not
> > meaningful and is (now) forbidden, in which case it should at least be
> > documented. This is certainly worth another month of careful thinking
> > rather than rushing this into 5.29 now that it proved to be not 100%
> > perfect.
>
> I investigated and can prove now that the test is not meaningful: it
> doesn't
> compile on master either. See https://paste.kde.org/po6oahg5p
>
> The problem is the "Inherits" - it doesn't really specify the conditions.
> All
> we have in the documentation is "Class the generated class inherits from.
> This
> class must inherit  KConfigSkeleton."
>
> But inheriting from KConfigSkeleton is not enough as the test case and the
> kdevelop example shows. It must have the same ctors as KConfigSkeleton
> available for the inheriting class. That's the problem with the autotest
> and
> the problem with kdevelop's case. There the ctor existed, but was private
> instead of public.
>
> Given that I think my change can go in, but we also should specify more
> clearly the Inherits requirements.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20161210/32493de6/attachment.html>