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
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@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org
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
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
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
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.
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@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Daniel Vrátil -
John Pilkington -
Kevin Kofler -
Luigi Toscano -
Patrick Boutilier -
Reindl Harald -
Rex Dieter