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.
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
[20.09] kdeFrameworks.plasma-framework: aligned with QtQuick 2.12 #101078
Conversation
Aligned plasma-framework with qt5.12 see NixOS#98536
b65e770
to
f868c68
Compare
# see https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/98536 | ||
postPatch = '' | ||
substituteInPlace src/declarativeimports/plasmaextracomponents/qml/ExpandableListItem.qml \ | ||
--replace "import QtQuick 2.14" "import QtQuick 2.12" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really qualified to review this, but I'm pretty interested:
- Where does the 2.14 come from?
- Where does the 2.12 come from?
- Will this break on the next
libsForQt5 = libsForQt512
andlibsForQt5 = libsForQt514
bump? - Should this be parametrized on some
${qt5.base.version}
to be more future proof?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where does the 2.14 come from?
It's what the upstream plasma-frameworks
expects
Where does the 2.12 come from?
I got that from other applications which were working
Will this break on the next libsForQt5 = libsForQt512 and libsForQt5 = libsForQt514 bump?
This is specifically for the 20.09 release, those are unlikely to be bumped.
But it's just the version of the widget, so I don't think this will be too "harmful"
Should this be parametrized on some ${qt5.base.version} to be more future proof?
AFAIK, these are looked up at runtime, and us needing to use the 5.12 qt libraries is where this mismatch comes from. However, using a "previous" version of the widget seems to be harmless
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great catch, thanks!
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/go-no-go-meeting-nixos-20-09-nightingale/9169/24 |
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/what-should-stable-nixos-prioritize/9646/1 |
Motivation for this change
A less invasive remedy for #98536
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)