 @mitya57 Is qtwebkit-opensource-src syncable? I'll try a test build tonight, but if it is, I'd like to sync it :)
 (Along with the Qt transition I'm preparing, but still.)
 Right now I'm almost done with the bootstrapping process in the PPA, but since I'm concurrently doing Debian Experimental uploads, I can just sync packages to the PPA when the bootstrapping is done.
 irt bootstrapping, qtwebkit is building locally (just bumping build deps, I might bump debhelper and std-ver) and after that I just need qttools.
 Once both are done and uploaded, I can go quicker (because I'm not waiting for build dependencies to get done). So the slow part is almost done. :)
 I see 5.11.1 was planned for tomorrow, but seeing as there are still open blockers in the bug tracker, they'll probably push it back. If they don't push it back however, I still want to finish 5.11.0 and get it out of the way, and then the update to 5.11.1 should be trivial at best.
 @mitya57, lisandro: When 5.11.1 does come out though, and when it's in Experimental (which should be in the next week or two), I'd like to plan a time to sit down with one of you to go through requesting the transition in Debian. I already commented in #ubuntu-release that I wanted to do a Qt transition, but devel-proposed is in rough shape, so there's a chance I'll have to wait (but I'll keep dialogue going).
 Hmmmmm, I see 5.11.1 tars but no announcement yet...
 @tsimonq2, Ah, so ppc64el is FTBFS. I wonder if we can upstream that patch to Debian or if it should stay in Ubuntu.
 Anyway, I'll leave that how it is for now... bed for me.
 p/
 *o/
 @tsimonq2, First you will need to test-build all packages depending on qt{base,declarative}-private-dev to see if they get broken. Looking at the failures in Ubuntu is usually enough, as it is a superset of Debian.
 Then file a transition bug (`reportbug release.debian.org`), wait for the green light. When you get it, re-upload all Qt packages with s/experimental/unstable/ (and updating symbols if needed).
 @tsimonq2, It won’t hurt in Debian, but the FTBFS is Ubuntu specific for some reason. Note that it's not just a patch, but also three lines in d/rules.
 @tsimonq2, http://blog.qt.io/blog/2018/06/19/qt-5-11-1-released/
 Thanks @mitya57 and @acheronuk
 I think instead of continuing, now that I have the core toolchain bootstrapped, I think I'll start over with 5.11.1 and qtbase in Debian and Ubuntu.
 It shouldn't be that hard to update things now that .0 is out of the way for them.
 I think the plan of action from here is to go full speed ahead updating to .1, and land that in Ubuntu/pass that off to @acheronuk for Plasma. From there, once I know Ubuntu's completely good, I'll request a transition slot for Debian and proceed there.
 I might land in Ubuntu first with the packages from Experimental pre-transition, then as soon as that's done, do the transition in Debian and let the packages flow down via the autosyncer.
 good afternoon
 @tsimonq2 do you have the 5.11 ubuntu work in git?
 @Santa, Yes, in Salsa.
 ok, I was expecting an ubuntu/bionic branch here https://salsa.debian.org/qt-kde-team/qt/qtbase/branches
 sorry, ubuntu/cosmic
 O_o
 There should be one there.
 just looked at the exact same url, and though the same
 @tsimonq2, +1
 Awesome
 no cosmic for qtdeclarative either
 qtdeclarative gets synced
 The only things that should have Cosmic branches are qtbase and qtwebkit
 Note that qtdeclarative *does* have a delta in Bionic.
 And also qtmultimedia.
 All Qt packages have a delta in Bionic because we diverged from Debian.
 The only meaningful delta left in qtdeclarative were transitional packages that could be dropped.
 I'll just pull the ci-train sources for testing backport builds then
 Am I wrong?
 @acheronuk, This isn't all of it anyway
 Just the core stuff
 Hm, I meant real delta :)
 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtdeclarative-opensource-src/5.9.1-4ubuntu1
 That's Artful
 @tsimonq2, meaning you won't build all in ci-train to land?
 @mitya57 Mind taking another look and seeing if I accidentally dropped meaningful qtdeclarative delta at one point? qtmultimedia is one I haven't even looked at yet.
 @acheronuk, Well, not right now, but eventually
 @acheronuk Were you going to backport 5.11 to Bionic for Backports?
 Did you want me to do that?
 I don't mind who does it
 OK
 @tsimonq2, If the whole Qt stack built fine without that patch, then dropping it was right. Looks like that is the case.
 @mitya57, Qool :)
 But the patch is still there :(
 So it just was not documented as a delta.
 Ah.
 It seems to build fine without it though... 🤔
 qtdeclarative itself will build fine without it, but you might have problems in some other Qt modules.
 OK
 Do you think it would hurt to pull that patch into Debian?
 If not, I'll just include it there when I get to it for 5.11.1.
 Otherwise I can do a delta; it doesn't really matter to me. :)
 It won’t hurt, but I cannot explain why this patch helps in Ubuntu, it is a dirty workaround for some crazy bug 😱
 Ah OK :)
 I'll put it in Debian then
 Maybe first check if it is still needed — maybe that bug disappeared somehow
 According to upstream bug https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-61579 you need to check if qtmultimedia tests pass on s390x without that patch
 OK
 @tsimonq2 @mitya57 it would be really helpful if we could have ubuntu/cosmic branches for all the git repositories (even if they just point to a debian branch if there's no delta)
 @Santa, I'll get to it.
 @tsimonq2, Thank you
 yw
 @tsimonq2 sometimes in the past you have documented the bootstrap process, have you documented somewhere the one you are just doing right now?
 @Santa, https://is.gd/GIZG9E