[08:39] <lubot> <mitya57> So https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/commit/?id=fa091640134b3ff99a9eb92df8286d15203122bf should fix the mesa bug
[08:40] <lubot> <mitya57> @tsimonq2 Can you apply it in your 5.9.4 package?
[12:23] <lubot1> <tsimonq2> \o/
[12:23] <lubot1> <tsimonq2> Sure
[12:55] <tsimonq2> n
[12:55] <tsimonq2> grr
[12:55] <lubot1> <tsimonq2> Mirv: o/
[13:16]  * mitya57 waves to Mirv too
[13:33] <Mirv> \o
[18:19] <lubot1> <acheronuk> http://blog.qt.io/blog/2018/02/22/qt-roadmap-2018/
=== acheronuk_ is now known as acheronuk
[18:38]  * blaze is wondering which release will get 5.12
[18:40] <acheronuk> yeah "For Qt 5.12 LTS we are looking into possibilities for decoupling Qt WebEngine from Qt release schedules to allow more frequent updates of Qt WebEngine."
[18:41]  * blaze is terrified by the current amount of regressions and looking forward to much more
[18:41] <lubot1> <tsimonq2> @acheronuk, NICE
[19:45] <lubot1> <DanChapman> Hey all. Would it be possible to get the private-headers for qtquick controls 2 packaged? or is there a specific reason they currently aren't?
[19:49] <lubot1> <mitya57> @DanChapman, We usually add private headers only when we need them for other Qt or KDE packages
[19:49] <lubot1> <mitya57> Because private headers mean that ABI changes with every major release, which complexify updates a lot.
[19:56] <lubot1> <DanChapman> Ok that makes sense. My reason for asking is ubports needs them to build it's custom style for qtquick controls. We can probably just package them ourselves for now then. thanks for the explanation