[02:33] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @mitya57 Is qtwebkit-opensource-src syncable? I'll try a test build tonight, but if it is, I'd like to sync it :)
[02:34] <lubot> <tsimonq2> (Along with the Qt transition I'm preparing, but still.)
[02:43] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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.
[02:43] <lubot> <tsimonq2> irt bootstrapping, qtwebkit is building locally (just bumping build deps, I might bump debhelper and std-ver) and after that I just need qttools.
[02:44] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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. :)
[02:46] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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.
[02:49] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @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).
[03:37] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Hmmmmm, I see 5.11.1 tars but no announcement yet...
[05:40] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @tsimonq2, Ah, so ppc64el is FTBFS. I wonder if we can upstream that patch to Debian or if it should stay in Ubuntu.
[05:40] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Anyway, I'll leave that how it is for now... bed for me.
[05:40] <lubot> <tsimonq2> p/
[05:40] <lubot> <tsimonq2> *o/
[07:00] <lubot> <mitya57> @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.
[07:04] <lubot> <mitya57> 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).
[07:04] <lubot> <mitya57> @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.
[12:13] <lubot> <acheronuk> @tsimonq2, http://blog.qt.io/blog/2018/06/19/qt-5-11-1-released/
[15:33] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Thanks @mitya57 and @acheronuk
[17:43] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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.
[17:43] <lubot> <tsimonq2> It shouldn't be that hard to update things now that .0 is out of the way for them.
[17:48] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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.
[17:49] <lubot> <tsimonq2> 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.
[17:57] <lubot> <Santa> good afternoon
[17:58] <lubot> <Santa> @tsimonq2 do you have the 5.11 ubuntu work in git?
[17:59] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @Santa, Yes, in Salsa.
[18:00] <lubot> <Santa> ok, I was expecting an ubuntu/bionic branch here https://salsa.debian.org/qt-kde-team/qt/qtbase/branches
[18:00] <lubot> <Santa> sorry, ubuntu/cosmic
[18:00] <lubot> <tsimonq2> O_o
[18:01] <lubot> <tsimonq2> There should be one there.
[18:01] <lubot> <acheronuk> just looked at the exact same url, and though the same
[18:01] <lubot> <mitya57> @tsimonq2, +1
[18:02] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Awesome
[18:03] <lubot> <acheronuk> no cosmic for qtdeclarative either
[18:03] <lubot> <tsimonq2> qtdeclarative gets synced
[18:03] <lubot> <tsimonq2> The only things that should have Cosmic branches are qtbase and qtwebkit
[18:04] <lubot> <mitya57> Note that qtdeclarative *does* have a delta in Bionic.
[18:04] <lubot> <mitya57> And also qtmultimedia.
[18:05] <lubot> <tsimonq2> All Qt packages have a delta in Bionic because we diverged from Debian.
[18:05] <lubot> <tsimonq2> The only meaningful delta left in qtdeclarative were transitional packages that could be dropped.
[18:05] <lubot> <acheronuk> I'll just pull the ci-train sources for testing backport builds then
[18:05] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Am I wrong?
[18:06] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @acheronuk, This isn't all of it anyway
[18:06] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Just the core stuff
[18:06] <lubot> <mitya57> Hm, I meant real delta :)
[18:06] <lubot> qtdeclararive used to have a patch to fix breakage on arm64. Maybe it got dropped, but I don’t remember that.
[18:06] <lubot> qtmultimedia used to need some changes to account for OpenGL ES on arm64.
[18:07] <lubot> <tsimonq2> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtdeclarative-opensource-src/5.9.1-4ubuntu1
[18:07] <lubot> <tsimonq2> That's Artful
[18:07] <lubot> <acheronuk> @tsimonq2, meaning you won't build all in ci-train to land?
[18:08] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @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.
[18:08] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @acheronuk, Well, not right now, but eventually
[18:08] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @acheronuk Were you going to backport 5.11 to Bionic for Backports?
[18:08] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Did you want me to do that?
[18:09] <lubot> <acheronuk> I don't mind who does it
[18:09] <lubot> <tsimonq2> OK
[18:09] <lubot> <mitya57> @tsimonq2, If the whole Qt stack built fine without that patch, then dropping it was right. Looks like that is the case.
[18:10] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @mitya57, Qool :)
[18:11] <lubot> <mitya57> But the patch is still there :(
[18:11] <lubot> https://salsa.debian.org/qt-kde-team/qt/qtdeclarative/blob/ubuntu/bionic/debian/patches/testcase_array_iteration.patch
[18:11] <lubot> <mitya57> So it just was not documented as a delta.
[18:12] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Ah.
[18:12] <lubot> <tsimonq2> It seems to build fine without it though... 🤔
[18:13] <lubot> <mitya57> qtdeclarative itself will build fine without it, but you might have problems in some other Qt modules.
[18:13] <lubot> <tsimonq2> OK
[18:14] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Do you think it would hurt to pull that patch into Debian?
[18:14] <lubot> <tsimonq2> If not, I'll just include it there when I get to it for 5.11.1.
[18:14] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Otherwise I can do a delta; it doesn't really matter to me. :)
[18:15] <lubot> <mitya57> It won’t hurt, but I cannot explain why this patch helps in Ubuntu, it is a dirty workaround for some crazy bug 😱
[18:15] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Ah OK :)
[18:15] <lubot> <tsimonq2> I'll put it in Debian then
[18:17] <lubot> <mitya57> Maybe first check if it is still needed — maybe that bug disappeared somehow
[18:17] <lubot> <mitya57> According to upstream bug https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-61579 you need to check if qtmultimedia tests pass on s390x without that patch
[18:21] <lubot> <tsimonq2> OK
[18:46] <lubot> <Santa> @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)
[18:47] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @Santa, I'll get to it.
[18:48] <lubot> <Santa> @tsimonq2, Thank you
[18:48] <lubot> <tsimonq2> yw
[22:15] <lubot> <Santa> @tsimonq2 sometimes in the past you have documented the bootstrap process, have you documented somewhere the one you are just doing right now?
[22:49] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @Santa, https://is.gd/GIZG9E