About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:05:16PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.
>
>
http://qt.nokia.com/developer/changes/changes-4.6.3/
--
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:05:16PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.
>
>
Sorry wrong link
http://qt.nokia.com/developer/changes/changes-4.7.3/

No big changes but yet again is labeled as bug-fix release
--
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

On 05/11/2011 02:11 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:05:16PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.



Sorry wrong link
http://qt.nokia.com/developer/changes/changes-4.7.3/

No big changes but yet again is labeled as bug-fix release


Yep, only for Symbian though. We already had the SSL certificate patch
in 4.7.2-r1. I actually didn't look at the changelog itself, but at the
Git diffs instead, where I saw that there were zero changes for
non-Symbian (except the SSL patch).


But now that it's in, it's in I guess. Nothing we can do about it :-)

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a):
> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.
>
>
With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release.

As most of the apps does not change at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3KgeUACgkQHB6c3gNBRYfOHwCgln+yfvb45Q p8Eap23xBEY6mc
giUAoINsKTdRS2p57/Uq6QbviE0vda1l
=LfVr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

On 05/11/2011 03:32 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a):

Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.



With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release.

As most of the apps does not change at all.


I don't know :-P Avoiding needless bumps was, IIRC, one of the reasons
Gentoo uses split ebuilds. Anyway, I mentioned this because in the
past, at least one time, a version bump for Qt was omitted exactly
because there were no changes.

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

Nikos Chantziaras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:35 +0300 as excerpted:

> On 05/11/2011 03:32 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a):
>>> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
>>> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.
>>>
>>>
>> With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release.
>>
>> As most of the apps does not change at all.
>
> I don't know :-P Avoiding needless bumps was, IIRC, one of the reasons
> Gentoo uses split ebuilds. Anyway, I mentioned this because in the
> past, at least one time, a version bump for Qt was omitted exactly
> because there were no changes.

I have in fact wondered about just that. Back when the kde split ebuilds
were being created, one of the big advantages was said to be that most kde
bumps didn't actually change anything for most apps, and we could keep the
same versions. But recently I've seen comments from the kde folks saying
most don't, but we bump anyway, and I know everything does seem to be
bumped.

Is that simply because it's simpler to track everything at the same
version, instead of having kdelibs at 4.6.3 and kmail, for instance, still
at 4.6.0? (That was in fact one of my worries with the initial thinking,
that it'd be difficult to know whether upstream had updated and gentoo/kde
had problems with it for gentoo and hadn't updated, or whether upstream
simply hadn't updated that package. When the versions are all synced with
upstream regardless of changes, that's not an issue, even if it does mean
much more "useless" building.)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:20:36PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:35 +0300 as excerpted:
>
> > On 05/11/2011 03:32 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a):
> >>> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian
> >>> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release.
> >>
> >> As most of the apps does not change at all.
> >
> > I don't know :-P Avoiding needless bumps was, IIRC, one of the reasons
> > Gentoo uses split ebuilds. Anyway, I mentioned this because in the
> > past, at least one time, a version bump for Qt was omitted exactly
> > because there were no changes.
>
> I have in fact wondered about just that. Back when the kde split ebuilds
> were being created, one of the big advantages was said to be that most kde
> bumps didn't actually change anything for most apps, and we could keep the
> same versions. But recently I've seen comments from the kde folks saying
> most don't, but we bump anyway, and I know everything does seem to be
> bumped.
>
> Is that simply because it's simpler to track everything at the same
> version, instead of having kdelibs at 4.6.3 and kmail, for instance, still
> at 4.6.0? (That was in fact one of my worries with the initial thinking,
> that it'd be difficult to know whether upstream had updated and gentoo/kde
> had problems with it for gentoo and hadn't updated, or whether upstream
> simply hadn't updated that package. When the versions are all synced with
> upstream regardless of changes, that's not an issue, even if it does mean
> much more "useless" building.)
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
>
>
To my perspective, split ebuilds ease the integration of patches. You can
patch a single ebuild and not have to rebuild everything else. But, when
it comes to version bumps, I think it is more safe to bump everything.
Do note that we apply patches more frequently than we do version bumps,
so it is definitely worth the pain of having split ebuilds.

Regards,
--
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:27:48 +0100 as excerpted:

> To my perspective, split ebuilds ease the integration of patches. You
> can patch a single ebuild and not have to rebuild everything else. But,
> when it comes to version bumps, I think it is more safe to bump
> everything. Do note that we apply patches more frequently than we do
> version bumps, so it is definitely worth the pain of having split
> ebuilds.

That was another reason given, and it still makes sense, as does the
safety of bumping everything together (no revdep-rebuild issues that way).

Thanks for the reminder. =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

About the Qt 4.7.3 bump
 

El 11/05/11 17:43, Duncan escribió:
> Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:27:48 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> To my perspective, split ebuilds ease the integration of patches. You
>> can patch a single ebuild and not have to rebuild everything else. But,
>> when it comes to version bumps, I think it is more safe to bump
>> everything. Do note that we apply patches more frequently than we do
>> version bumps, so it is definitely worth the pain of having split
>> ebuilds.
> That was another reason given, and it still makes sense, as does the
> safety of bumping everything together (no revdep-rebuild issues that way).
>
> Thanks for the reminder. =:^)
Me be user. Me see that latest version of QT not in portage. Me open bug
to ask for a bump.

Not that all our users are stupid, but most of them don't know wether
things changed or not between versions.