[00:43] <tsimonq2> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/qt4-rm.html
[06:43] <mitya57> tsimonq2: thanks. I expect it to greatly reduce when the Debian importer starts next cycle, as we have recently bumped our bugs to release-critical.
[06:45] <mitya57> Ah, you want to do that before the archive opens…
[07:04] <lubot> <tsimonq2> The goal, yes
[07:04] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Do I actually think it will happen? Probably not
[07:05] <lubot> <tsimonq2> I definitely want to aim for before 20.04 is released though as a final date
[07:18] <lubot> <mitya57> Well, if the archive admins agree to remove so many packages at once, it may happen.
[07:21] <lubot> <mitya57> The tricky part may be some source packages where only a part of them needs Qt4 (see comments in https://wiki.debian.org/Qt4Removal, e.g. backintime, nfs-ganesha). In this case removing the whole source is not needed. … Also we need to fix 4 flavors.
[07:21] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Right
[07:21] <lubot> <tsimonq2> I think vorlon might do it
[07:21] <lubot> <tsimonq2> (mass removal, if requested)
[07:21] <lubot> <mitya57> Good for us then
[07:22] <lubot> <tsimonq2> I don't think that's the hard part though. Finding trigger happy AAs isn't necessarily a hard thing to do :P
[07:22] <lubot> <tsimonq2> I think most of the flavors just depend on fcitx
[07:22] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Our next task really should be identifying those source packages that only partially depend on Qt 4
[07:23] <lubot> <mitya57> There are some comments on that wiki page but they are not complete and not structured
[07:23] <lubot> <mitya57> E.g. lightdm definitely shouldn't be removed, but there is no comment about it
[07:24] <lubot> <mitya57> Also there are some Ubuntu-specific packages.
[07:24] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Okay
[07:26] <lubot> <mitya57> What do you think about removing qtwebkit & qtwebkit-source this cycle? At least one of them :)
[07:26] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Sounds good to me
[07:26] <lubot> <mitya57> I wonder who synced qtwebkit — it was not in disco (and I believe it was even in sync blacklist)
[07:27] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @acheronuk ^ ?
[07:27] <lubot> <mitya57> Looks like it was LocutusOfBorg actually
[07:27] <lubot> <tsimonq2> One of the two I thought :)
[07:28] <lubot> <tsimonq2> @mitya57 [What do you think about removing qtwebkit & qtwebkit-source this cycle? At least …], I'll set up a transition tracker now
[07:29] <lubot> <mitya57> Thanks. There should be just a few packages but I'm from phone now so can't check.
[07:29] <lubot> <tsimonq2> Yeah, just a couplke
[07:38] <lubot> <mitya57> 👍
[07:50] <lubot> <RikMills> @mitya57 [I wonder who synced qtwebkit — it was not in disco (and I believe it was even in …], LOB did
[07:52] <lubot> <RikMills> as somthing didn't build against: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtwebkit-source
[07:57] <lubot> <mitya57> If something doesn't build the right thing would be removing it
[11:56] <lubot> <mitya57> So… https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/qtwebkit-rm.html
[12:02] <lubot> <mitya57> Quite some stuff uses PySide.QtWebKit: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=from+PySide.QtWebKit+import
[12:06] <lubot> <mitya57> And some of those don‘t even have bugs filed in Debian… Doing that now.
[15:43] <lisandro> Thanks