qt-5.6.0 for f22?

[Rex Dieter]

Started working on bootstrapping Qt-5.6.0 for f23/epel7/el6 today... and was 
thinking that perhaps it's getting a bit close to f22's end of lifetime to 
be pushing any big updates (like qt-5.6.0).

Anyone with strong feelings one way or the other?

In particular, anyone using Qt-5.6.0 copr,
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/kdesig/Qt5/
on f22 with good results (compared with stock qt-5.5.1 experience)?

-- Rex

[Daniel Vrátil]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 2:32:28 PM CET Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Started working on bootstrapping Qt-5.6.0 for f23/epel7/el6 today...
> and was
>  thinking that perhaps it's getting a bit close to f22's end of lifetime to
>  be pushing any big updates (like qt-5.6.0).
>  
>  Anyone with strong feelings one way or the other? 
I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm thinking to also skip 
Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most critical 
issues. Any objections or opinions?

Dan
>  
>  In particular, anyone using Qt-5.6.0 copr,
>  https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/kdesig/Qt5/
>  on f22 with good results (compared with stock qt-5.5.1 experience)?
>  
>  -- Rex
>  _______________________________________________
>  kde mailing list
>  kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail] 

-- 
Daniel Vrátil
www.dvratil.cz | dvratil(a)fedoraproject.org
IRC: dvratil on Freenode (#fedora-kde, #kde,#kontact, #akonadi)

[Luigi Toscano]

Daniel Vrátil ha scritto:
>  On Friday, March 18, 2016 2:32:28 PM CET Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Started working on bootstrapping Qt-5.6.0 for f23/epel7/el6 today... and was
> > thinking that perhaps it's getting a bit close to f22's end of lifetime to
> > be pushing any big updates (like qt-5.6.0).
> >
> > Anyone with strong feelings one way or the other?
>  
>  I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm thinking to also skip 
>  Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most critical 
>  issues. Any objections or opinions? 
Just opinion, not objection (as you are doing the job and it's a big task):
would it make sense to push at least those few big updates until F24 is
released? That would mean likely Frameworks up to 5.23 and Plasma 5.6.x (plus
Applications 16.04.x), and they don't require Qt 5.6.

Ciao
-- 
Luigi

[Kevin Kofler]

Daniel Vrátil wrote:
>  I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm
> thinking to also
>  skip Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most
>  critical issues. Any objections or opinions? 
I think Fedora n-1 (currently 22) should be fully supported, i.e., get all 
backwards-compatible updates, which Qt 5.6, Plasma 5.6 etc. are supposed to 
be.

        Kevin Kofler

[Reindl Harald]

Am 25.03.2016 um 05:14 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>  Daniel Vrátil wrote:
> > I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm thinking to also
> > skip Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most
> > critical issues. Any objections or opinions?
>
>  I think Fedora n-1 (currently 22) should be fully supported, i.e., get all
>  backwards-compatible updates, which Qt 5.6, Plasma 5.6 etc. are supposed to
>  be. 
for sure not

the reason why somebody stays on Fedora n-1 is in the most cases 
stability and "i can't have something breaking at the moment"

backwards-compatible is one thing, but for a ordinary user which by 
intention waits as long as possible with dist-upgrades something like 
the breakage i had on F23 two days ago with KDE is *exactly* what he 
don't want

Qt/Plasma are not the Kernel where somebody takes case that not much 
breakage happens

[John Pilkington]

On 25/03/16 06:19, Reindl Harald wrote:
>  Am 25.03.2016 um 05:14 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> > Daniel Vrátil wrote:
> >> I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm thinking to also
> >> skip Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most
> >> critical issues. Any objections or opinions?
> >
> > I think Fedora n-1 (currently 22) should be fully supported, i.e., get
> > all
> > backwards-compatible updates, which Qt 5.6, Plasma 5.6 etc. are
> > supposed to
> > be.
>
>  for sure not
>
>  the reason why somebody stays on Fedora n-1 is in the most cases
>  stability and "i can't have something breaking at the moment"
>
>  backwards-compatible is one thing, but for a ordinary user which by
>  intention waits as long as possible with dist-upgrades something like
>  the breakage i had on F23 two days ago with KDE is *exactly* what he
>  don't want
>
>  Qt/Plasma are not the Kernel where somebody takes case that not much
>  breakage happens
>  
+1  I have used Fedora n-1 as a fair compromise between cutting-edge and 
stability, hoping that major bugs have been eliminated.  I also use SL7. 
  Brand new bugs would be a pain.

[Patrick Boutilier]

On 03/25/2016 03:19 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>  Am 25.03.2016 um 05:14 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> > Daniel Vrátil wrote:
> >> I'm fine with slowing down on F22. Considering that I'm thinking to also
> >> skip Frameworks and Plasma 5.6 updates for F22, backport only the most
> >> critical issues. Any objections or opinions?
> >
> > I think Fedora n-1 (currently 22) should be fully supported, i.e., get
> > all
> > backwards-compatible updates, which Qt 5.6, Plasma 5.6 etc. are
> > supposed to
> > be.
>
>  for sure not
>
>  the reason why somebody stays on Fedora n-1 is in the most cases
>  stability and "i can't have something breaking at the moment"
>
>  backwards-compatible is one thing, but for a ordinary user which by
>  intention waits as long as possible with dist-upgrades something like
>  the breakage i had on F23 two days ago with KDE is *exactly* what he
>  don't want
>
>  Qt/Plasma are not the Kernel where somebody takes case that not much
>  breakage happens 

I agree with this reasoning as well.




>  _______________________________________________
>  kde mailing list
>  kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>