Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

qtdeclarative: Patch for scrollbar regression #95091

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 15, 2020
Merged

qtdeclarative: Patch for scrollbar regression #95091

merged 1 commit into from Aug 15, 2020

Conversation

ttuegel
Copy link
Member

@ttuegel ttuegel commented Aug 10, 2020 •
edited

Motivation for this change

KDE upstream is asking us to carry this patch: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-distro-packagers/2020-June/000419.html

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Aug 15, 2020

Note the list appears to be private.

@FRidh FRidh merged commit 5530043 into NixOS:staging Aug 15, 2020
@ttuegel
Copy link
Member Author

ttuegel commented Aug 17, 2020

Note the list appears to be private.

Ah, actually the list was deleted (merged with another list).

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Aug 25, 2020

For reference, the original e-mail can be accessed at https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/distributions/2020-June/000419.html

Regression cross-link: #96159. A visual fix doesn't seem worth the regression, though perhaps someone would be able to resolve it in a better way than reverting.

@ttuegel
Copy link
Member Author

ttuegel commented Aug 27, 2020

A visual fix doesn't seem worth the regression, though perhaps someone would be able to resolve it in a better way than reverting.

I have no idea why the patch would cause a permission error, so I'm inclined to call this WONTFIX. If upstream wants the bug fixed they can make a bug-fix release. 🤷

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: qt/kde 10.rebuild-darwin: 101-500 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ 10.rebuild-linux: 1001-2500
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@ttuegel @FRidh @vcunat