Project support status for Linux Qt builds

[Benjamin Smedberg]

In bug 774813 and 772419 there are discussions about the current level
of project support for the Linux Qt builds, which were broken by a
checkin to mozilla-central yesterday. Currently this configuration is
not listed on the build tiers page. Historically we were interested in
Qt partly because it was the widget backend for MeeGo builds. But since
our focus is on other things, I'd like to propose that we consider the
Linux Qt builds a tier-3 build, or possibly unsupported. This has the
following implications:

* I am calling for volunteers who are interested in being the maintainer
of record for the Linux Qt configuration. If no maintainer steps
forward, the Linux Qt build will be considered unsupported and may be
removed in a future release.
* Core developers will not be responsible for breaking the Linux Qt
build, and architecture/engineering decisions don't have to explicitly
consider that build.
* If a maintainer is found, developers should attempt to inform the
maintainer and the Linux Qt community of changes that may break the port.

As a consequence of this, I'm also proposing to approve the request in
bug 772419 to Linux Qt builds from the project release engineering
builds, so that we will no longer perform try/central/nightly builds in
this configuration.

--BDS

[Ben Hearsum]

On 07/18/12 01:11 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> As a consequence of this, I'm also proposing to approve the request in
> bug 772419 to Linux Qt builds from the project release engineering
> builds, so that we will no longer perform try/central/nightly builds in
> this configuration.

It's also worth noting that Qt builds are currently hidden from most
branches in TBPL (including inbound and central), so they're already
serving almost no purpose. They're still running on try, but aren't
triggered without -p all or -q linuxqt, so they're unlikely to be run
most of the time.

[Ehsan Akhgari]

Also, it would be great if the maintainer would provide instructions on
how one can do a Qt build in case other people would like to help with
fixing stuff in that port.

Cheers,
Ehsan

[Oleg Romashin]

Where these instructions must be posted? is there are some central place for ports build configuration?
For most of linux distributions it is just enough to install qt4-dev packages, and specify toolkit=cairo-qt in order to build Qt port.

[Oleg Romashin]

On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 10:26:46 UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:

[Ehsan Akhgari]

MDN seems like a good place. That's where all other build documentation
lives.

Cheers,
Ehsan

[Justin Dolske]

On 7/18/12 10:11 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we consider the
> Linux Qt builds a tier-3 build, or possibly unsupported.

+1. I'd even go so far as to say that we should flat-out consider it
unsupported unless there is some hugely compelling reason to not do so.
Looking around the state of Desktop and Mobile, the unfortunate reality
is that I don't see this platform as being relevant (in terms of either
market or users), nor does that seem likely to change.

Justin

[Oleg Romashin]

build mozilla qt - google search gives first link to
https://wiki.*mozilla*.org/User:Pjohnsen/*MozillaQtBuild - which basically
still works
Br, Oleg
*

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan....@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 12-07-18 7:29 PM, Oleg Romashin wrote:
>

[Henri Sivonen]

Qt on mobile may get revived by RIM and/or Jolla. HP and Canonical
have been hiring in the Qt space, too.

Even though there isn't a Qt-based offering compelling enough right
now to warrant further investment by Mozilla at present, it would be
sad to have to redevelop a Qt port in the future instead of keeping it
in a holding pattern. That is to say: To me it would make sense to
keep the Qt port around in a holding pattern. It's not breaking *that*
often and causing trouble, is it?

--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[Ben Hearsum]

On 07/19/12 02:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Even though there isn't a Qt-based offering compelling enough right
> now to warrant further investment by Mozilla at present, it would be
> sad to have to redevelop a Qt port in the future instead of keeping it
> in a holding pattern. That is to say: To me it would make sense to
> keep the Qt port around in a holding pattern. It's not breaking *that*
> often and causing trouble, is it?
>

You can make this argument for tons of things. Why don't we do builds
for every tier 2 and tier 3 platform? Because they're distractions from
what we *should* be focusing on.

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsiv...@iki.fi> wrote:

> Even though there isn't a Qt-based offering compelling enough right
> now to warrant further investment by Mozilla at present, it would be
> sad to have to redevelop a Qt port in the future instead of keeping it
> in a holding pattern. That is to say: To me it would make sense to
> keep the Qt port around in a holding pattern. It's not breaking *that*
> often and causing trouble, is it?
>

One wouldn't have to redevelop a Qt port from scratch. The question is
whether it's cheaper to fix Qt build breakages as soon as it occurs on
mozilla-central, or postpone fixing it until someone wants to ship a
Qt-based product (weighted by the probability of that ever happening).

I don't know the answer, but I find the latter at least plausible.

Rob
--
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]

[Ben Hearsum]

Nothing in this thread suggested that these builds should be considered
Tier 1. I went ahead and checked in the patch that will shut off these
builds. They will stop building in a day or two after the patch makes
its way to production.

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Thank you. I have not yet seen any responses from individuals
volunteering to be the Linux Qt maintainer of record. I will keep this
call open until I return on 7-August, and if I do not hear any more on
this I will move the Linux-Qt configuration into unmaintained status.

--BDS