| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stefan11111
l33t
Joined: 29 Jan 2023
Posts: 942
Location: Romania
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:53 pm Post subject: Too aggressive last-rites? |
 |
|
Hi.
I realize this might be a bit inflammatory, and I am aware of my reputation here.
Still I feel like this has to be said.
I make this thread to get some discussion, not to anger people.
If any of the people quoted below feel like I took their quotes out of context, feel free to point that out.
There was a thread on the gentoo -dev mailing titled: "Please actively drop support for Qt5 wherever possible".
In this thread, Andrey Grozin make the following point:
| Andrey Grozin wrote: |
So, removing Qt5 will break computers of many users, including my computer. In the course of many years of existence of Qt5 a large number of useful programs have been created; not all of them have been ported to Qt6. Are we going to throw away all this wealth?
|
Eli Schwartz then responded to this:
| Eli Schwartz wrote: |
Obviously nobody is proposing to throw away this wealth. For example,
the qt@ team will continue to maintain Qt 6, but you can take over
maintenance of Qt 5 for the sake of existing useful programs, and given
that the Qt 5 packages will then have a maintainer, there is no reason
to delete them.
|
Sam James also joined the discussion:
| Sam James wrote: |
I'll note again that at the moment, we're talking about "things which
support Qt 6, but the ebuild doesn't even acknowledge that right now, or
the ebuild still unnecessarily supports Qt 5."
|
| Sam James wrote: |
We best get started now then, which is the purpose of Andreas'
email. This is the warning to start filing those bugs and asking
upstreams to port if not done already. Not that we're going to last-rite
such packages tomorrow.
|
I don't think Sam James meant it like this, but it would turn out that indeed they wouldn't start last-riting packages the following day.
They would start last-riting packages that same day.
This email by Sam James was posted at Thu, 02 Jan 2025 19:56:07 +0000 (UTC).
At Thu, 02 Jan 2025 20:19:46 +0000 (UTC), about half an hour later, this email by Andreas Sturmlechner, the one who also made that thread, was made:
| Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: |
[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/libqt5pas
# Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> (2024-01-02)
# No more revdeps, depends on Qt5. Removal on 2025-01-29.
dev-libs/libqt5pas
|
As I said, this was probably not what Sam James meant and it was just a coincidence.
What I'd like to emphasize is this:
| Sam James wrote: |
I'll note again that at the moment, we're talking about "things which
support Qt 6, but the ebuild doesn't even acknowledge that right now, or
the ebuild still unnecessarily supports Qt 5."
|
As I read this, it means that the thread should be about adding support for qt6 to ebuilds and removing support for qt5 from ebuilds, where there are alternatives.
However, this has turned into: last rite everything that uses qt5 and doesn't support qt6.
Not only that, but some of the last riters didn't even look at whether or not upstream supports qt6 or not.
If the ebuild only has qt5 support, last rite it:
| Alexey Sokolov wrote: |
[gentoo-dev] Re: Last-rites: net-im/psi and net-im/psimedia
11.01.2025 10:09, Andreas Sturmlechner пишет:
# Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> (2025-01-11)
# Last release from 2020, effectively unmaintained in Gentoo.
# Depends on Qt5, app-crypt/qca[qt5] and dev-qt/qtwebengine:5.
# Bugs #755446, #926138, #926670. Removal on 2025-02-10.
net-im/psi
net-im/psimedia
The version in ::rion is maintained and uses qt6. Only 9999 though.
|
Maybe this is just a coincidence of unusually high last rite rates for qt5 packages.
I didn't post every last-rites email I can find in my inbox, but there were a lot sent in the last few days.
With this post, I want to point out that the last-riting is a bit too aggressive.
I'm not saying gentoo devs should spend time fixing broken qt5 packages.
However, I'd rather the saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" not turn into "If it isn't broke, fix it if you can, else break it".
gtk2 is still in ::gentoo.
leafpad is still in ::gentoo.
gimp is still in ::gentoo.
Why does qt5 have to be removed so aggressively?
What harm does it cause if it stays, even unmaintained, as long as it works?
I'd like to point out one more thing:
| Sam James wrote: |
I'll note again that at the moment, we're talking about "things which
support Qt 6, but the ebuild doesn't even acknowledge that right now, or
the ebuild still unnecessarily supports Qt 5."
|
Why must qt5 support be removed from ebuilds if it still works?
Why can't it stay there as long as it works?
Luckily, I don't really use qt much(neither 5, not 6).
I use qt5 for qbittorrent, because I don't like the qt6 webui and it looks ugly in pale moon with swarth
The other think I use qt for is mkvtoolnix, which I might install at some point in the future(I've used it in the past, but I haven't had it installed for quite some time).
I'd rather not have to use qt6 for this and qt5 for qbittorrent, but it's not that big of a problem.
If I have to, all I have to do is add some ebuilds to my overlay that can just sit there without much maintenance, if any.
I am very lightly impacted by this change, but I imagine others might be significantly affected by this.
I gave my example to show how removing qt5 support might negatively impact users.
So, why must qt5 be removed so aggressively?
Is there some heavy maintenance burden I am not aware of with qt5, that isn't there with qt6?
I'm not asking for maintainers to do more work that they don't want to do.
I'm asking to not break things that already work.
It is less work leaving something alone in a git repo that removing it.
When you leave those ebuilds in the tree, you don't do any work.
You have to at least write that last-rite email to remove it.
_________________
My overlay: https://github.com/stefan11111/stefan_overlay
INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d *udev* /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d *tmpfiles* /var/lib/dbus /usr/bin/gdbus /lib/udev" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9324
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you quote selectively without linking to the email thread you are talking about, when it already contains the answers to almost all of your questions?
| Quote: | | However, this has turned into: last rite everything that uses qt5 and doesn't support qt6. |
...then where are those other 500 last-rites messages of "everything that uses qt5"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rab0171610
Guru
Joined: 24 Dec 2022
Posts: 452
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I realize this might be a bit inflammatory, and I am aware of my reputation here. |
It is and so are we.
| Quote: | I gave my example to show how removing qt5 support might negatively impact users.
|
They will get over it. They are free to file bug reports if they are negatively impacted.
| Quote: | | What harm does it cause if it stays, even unmaintained, as long as it works? |
By that logic, any ebuild that has been replaced by a newer version would still be in the gentoo repos. Imagine the thousands of bug reports
and support issues that would have to be sifted through for who knows how many previous generations of software that "still work" so haven't been properly pruned.
| Quote: | The other think I use qt for is mkvtoolnix, which I might install at some point in the future(I've used it in the past, but I haven't had it installed for quite some time).
I'd rather not have to use qt6 for this and qt5 for qbittorrent, but it's not that big of a problem. |
Apparently, considering all the time and effort you took into quoting people and writing this post, you feel it is a big problem. Yet you admit that you don't actively use that package, it is not currently installed, and you may or may not install it again in the future, but you reserve the right to install it and expect that it will and should be in Gentoo with support for qt5.
| Quote: | | When you leave those ebuilds in the tree, you don't do any work. |
I think you know this isn't true. I have already explained why but I am sure since you run your own popular overlay visited by literally hundreds of users that
depend on your ebuilds to keep their Gentoo system functional, you probably already know the intricacies of why. After all, your overlay does have an "Issues" page that your hundreds of users can report problems with their EAPI 7, EAPI 6, etc ebuilds. Again, I think you are well aware of the intricacies involved in supporting multiple unnecessary ebuilds of previous versions of a given application. The new one, in short time, will replace the previous one. You are aware that Gentoo is a rolling release and it is time to move on.
| Quote: | | If I have to, all I have to do is add some ebuilds to my overlay that can just sit there without much maintenance, if any. |
There's your answer and solution all rolled up into one.
| Quote: | With this post, I want to point out that the last-riting is a bit too aggressive.
I'm not saying gentoo devs should spend time fixing broken qt5 packages.
However, I'd rather the saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" not turn into "If it isn't broke, fix it if you can, else break it". |
This is the user support forum, this is not the complaint department. That concern should be directed at the devs. Clearly, you know their names and email addresses. You should direct these comments and opinions to them directly. But, again, I think you already know that.
| Quote: | | I'm not asking for maintainers to do more work that they don't want to do. |
In my opinion, that is exactly what you are asking for. You are asking them to cater to your needs and whims and keep old versions of ebuilds around that have been replaced by newer releases -- to cater to those that can't or won't adapt to change. I personally defer to the gentoo devs decisions, and if not, file a bug with a polite request for consideration. You are free to keep all these pruned versions of ebuilds in your overlay for the hundreds of users that might still want to use qt5.
| Quote: | | I didn't post every last-rites email I can find in my inbox, but there were a lot sent in the last few days. |
Thank your for sparing us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3857
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Supporting qt5 will eat resources. And, unfortunately, Gentoo doesn't have "limitless" supply of maintainers/developers to keep old versions of packages around.
I guess one way would be to drop stable keyword from such old packages or drop keywording altogether. This, however, is not allowed afaik (correct if I'm wrong here) - once a package is marked as stable it stays so. It can only be masked.
But even then those ebuilds would cause problems as they age - EAPIs get deprecated, source files might move to a different location etc etc. Those would still need to be maintained.
What the devs are doing there is essentially lifting off some maintenance burden, so that they can focus more on other things.
The answer to keeping qt5 for foreseeable future is to get those packages from some other repo/overlay which supports them. Maybe yours?
_________________
..: Zucca :..
| My gentoo installs: | init=/sbin/openrc-init
-systemd -logind -elogind seatd |
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stefan11111
l33t
Joined: 29 Jan 2023
Posts: 942
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | Why do you quote selectively without linking to the email thread you are talking about, when it already contains the answers to almost all of your questions?
|
You are right, I should have also linked to the entire thread: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/3346777.aeNJFYEL58@tuxbrain.fritz.box/
| asturm wrote: |
| Quote: | | However, this has turned into: last rite everything that uses qt5 and doesn't support qt6. |
...then where are those other 500 last-rites messages of "everything that uses qt5"? |
There are not quite 500, but if you want to see some examples, here they are:
| various people wrote: |
Last-rites: net-im/psi and net-im/psimedia
Last-rites: dev-libs/qoauth
Last-rites: net-im/dianara
Last rites: dev-qt/qtstyleplugins
Last-rites: app-text/fbreader
Last-rites: dev-db/tora
Last-rites: dev-libs/kqoauth
Last-rites: dev-libs/qcoro5
Last-rites: dev-libs/libqt5pas
|
Looks like there are fewer that I remember seeing in my inbox, but still more than usual.
If the reason those were last-rited is not the fact that they are qt5 only, what was the reason?
Does it mean that not all qt5 only programs will be last-rited, as long as they are working and possibly meet some other criteria?
Again, I'm looking for discussion, not to argue.
It wouldn't impact me too much if qt was removed from the three altogether, so I don't have much reason to argue anyway.
I'm also not saying that any dev should do more work than they want, qt maintainer or otherwise.
_________________
My overlay: https://github.com/stefan11111/stefan_overlay
INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d *udev* /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d *tmpfiles* /var/lib/dbus /usr/bin/gdbus /lib/udev" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stefan11111
l33t
Joined: 29 Jan 2023
Posts: 942
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi. Judging from the tone of your post, we might have had a bad encounter somewhere, but I don't remember your username.
If that is the case, could you please tell we where that happened or what was said? In a pm if you don't want to do it here.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I realize this might be a bit inflammatory, and I am aware of my reputation here. |
It is and so are we.
|
I apologize if it is. I tried to make it as un-inflammatory as possible, but I might have failed with that.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | I gave my example to show how removing qt5 support might negatively impact users.
|
They will get over it. They are free to file bug reports if they are negatively impacted.
|
Yes, this is saying to users "if you don't like it, do something about it".
This is one way to solve any problem, but it might not be the best way.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | | What harm does it cause if it stays, even unmaintained, as long as it works? |
By that logic, any ebuild that has been replaced by a newer version would still be in the gentoo repos. Imagine the thousands of bug reports
and support issues that would have to be sifted through for who knows how many previous generations of software that "still work" so haven't been properly pruned.
|
I would say that qt5 vs qt6 is a bit different that qt 5.10 vs qt 5.11, or whatever the next version is.
qt5 and qt6 are different libs which are api-incompatible and have big visual differences.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | The other think I use qt for is mkvtoolnix, which I might install at some point in the future(I've used it in the past, but I haven't had it installed for quite some time).
I'd rather not have to use qt6 for this and qt5 for qbittorrent, but it's not that big of a problem. |
Apparently, considering all the time and effort you took into quoting people and writing this post, you feel it is a big problem. Yet you admit that you don't actively use that package, it is not currently installed, and you may or may not install it again in the future, but you reserve the right to install it and expect that it will and should be in Gentoo with support for qt5.
|
I wanted to comment and ask about the situation, even if it doesn't affect me personally much.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | | When you leave those ebuilds in the tree, you don't do any work. |
I think you know this isn't true. I have already explained why but I am sure since you run your own popular overlay visited by literally hundreds of users that
depend on your ebuilds to keep their Gentoo system functional, you probably already know the intricacies of why. After all, your overlay does have an "Issues" page that your hundreds of users can report problems with their EAPI 7, EAPI 6, etc ebuilds. Again, I think you are well aware of the intricacies involved in supporting multiple unnecessary ebuilds of previous versions of a given application. The new one, in short time, will replace the previous one. You are aware that Gentoo is a rolling release and it is time to move on.
|
I do have a public overlay, but if doesn't have hundreds of users. It probably has double digit users and I only think I got a bug report about it once via email.
Are you perhaps mistaking me for Stefan Talparu, who has a similar name?
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | | If I have to, all I have to do is add some ebuilds to my overlay that can just sit there without much maintenance, if any. |
There's your answer and solution all rolled up into one.
|
Indeed, that is always a solution, but that is not always the best solution.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | With this post, I want to point out that the last-riting is a bit too aggressive.
I'm not saying gentoo devs should spend time fixing broken qt5 packages.
However, I'd rather the saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" not turn into "If it isn't broke, fix it if you can, else break it". |
This is the user support forum, this is not the complaint department. That concern should be directed at the devs. Clearly, you know their names and email addresses. You should direct these comments and opinions to them directly. But, again, I think you already know that.
|
I don't want to make complaints to the devs.
I wanted to make a thread somewhere anyone can read and comment.
| rab0171610 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'm not asking for maintainers to do more work that they don't want to do. |
In my opinion, that is exactly what you are asking for. You are asking them to cater to your needs and whims and keep old versions of ebuilds around that have been replaced by newer releases -- to cater to those that can't or won't adapt to change. I personally defer to the gentoo devs decisions, and if not, file a bug with a polite request for consideration. You are free to keep all these pruned versions of ebuilds in your overlay for the hundreds of users that might still want to use qt5.
|
Let's look at some concrete example here.
One is gtk2, which I really don't think, judging by the commit history, that it takes much maintenance.
Users can simply emerge it and use it. It works just as fine today as it ever did.
It will probably be removed from ::gentoo as soon as one of the deprecated functions it uses gets removed from glib, but why remove it before that?
Another example is something like hexchat, or any other unmaintained app that still works.
_________________
My overlay: https://github.com/stefan11111/stefan_overlay
INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d *udev* /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d *tmpfiles* /var/lib/dbus /usr/bin/gdbus /lib/udev" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stefan11111
l33t
Joined: 29 Jan 2023
Posts: 942
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | Supporting qt5 will eat resources. And, unfortunately, Gentoo doesn't have "limitless" supply of maintainers/developers to keep old versions of packages around.
I guess one way would be to drop stable keyword from such old packages or drop keywording altogether. This, however, is not allowed afaik (correct if I'm wrong here) - once a package is marked as stable it stays so. It can only be masked.
But even then those ebuilds would cause problems as they age - EAPIs get deprecated, source files might move to a different location etc etc. Those would still need to be maintained.
|
I'm not saying that devs should spend time fixing ebuilds once they break if they don't want to.
I'm saying that they shouldn't remove things that still work.
| Zucca wrote: |
The answer to keeping qt5 for foreseeable future is to get those packages from some other repo/overlay which supports them. Maybe yours? |
I will probably do this for the qt5 packages I need.
On my system, it's really not much:
| Code: |
$ eix-installed -a | grep -i qt
dev-qt/linguist-tools-5.15.16
dev-qt/qtcore-5.15.16
dev-qt/qtnetwork-5.15.16
dev-qt/qtsql-5.15.16
dev-qt/qtxml-5.15.16
|
_________________
My overlay: https://github.com/stefan11111/stefan_overlay
INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d *udev* /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d *tmpfiles* /var/lib/dbus /usr/bin/gdbus /lib/udev" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbassie
l33t
Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 829
Location: Go past the sign for cope, right at the sign for seethe. If you see the target you've missed it.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Too aggressive last-rites? |
|
|
| stefan11111 wrote: | Hi.
I realize this might be a bit inflammatory, and I am aware of my reputation here. |
Stop realizing it, it isn't isn't in the slightest.
Also, what is your reputation and how does one earn one?
_________________
I spent a christmas in Vienna twenty something years ago. It was a beautiful city. Everyone was so friendly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
