Since package is configured with qmlui, this dependency should not be necessary. Plese check.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=de73af3b97023aeb77e961b81aff8256364671c2 commit de73af3b97023aeb77e961b81aff8256364671c2 Author: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2023-10-21 18:16:22 +0000 Commit: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2023-10-21 21:04:18 +0000 app-misc/qlcplus: add 5.0.0_beta2, fix dependencies, drop virtualx - add missing pkg_postrm() phase Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/915785 See also: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/26074 Signed-off-by: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> app-misc/qlcplus/Manifest | 1 + app-misc/qlcplus/qlcplus-5.0.0_beta2.ebuild | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
5.0.0_beta2 has a few reports open about being crashy, also it is old. Maybe a snapshot would be worthwhile?
5.0.0_beta3 available: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/releases/tag/QLC%2B_5.0.0_beta3
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=9a0b4a4a873c79847235ed7bf3e0c6c828dda3d6 commit 9a0b4a4a873c79847235ed7bf3e0c6c828dda3d6 Author: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2024-01-16 10:46:22 +0000 Commit: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2024-01-16 11:52:02 +0000 app-misc/qlcplus: add 5.0.0_beta3 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/915785 Signed-off-by: Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org> app-misc/qlcplus/Manifest | 1 + app-misc/qlcplus/qlcplus-5.0.0_beta3.ebuild | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+)
Jannis, do you think this is good enough to add back ~amd64 keyword for broader testing?
Hi Andreas, yes, I would say we can keyword beta-3 with ~amd64. It might even make sense to slot this package since v5 is not ready for "production" shows and people might still want v4 while having v5 installed to evaluate?
Did upstream enable it to be installed side-by-side without collisions?
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #7) > Did upstream enable it to be installed side-by-side without collisions? Upstream did not change anything. For the "static data" that is common between the versions (/usr/share/qlcplus/ and /lib/udev/rules.d), I might have to do a "qlcplus-shared", "qlcplus-data" or "qlcplus-common" ebuild. The executables are already named differently (/usr/bin/qlcplus vs /usr/bin/qlcplus-qml). It's just the libraries in /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/qlcplus and /usr/lib64/libqlcplus* that do collide. The former might be inter-changeable (need to check), the latter is probably not. Might work when one further modifies the variables.pri file: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/blob/master/variables.pri#L92 Do you think it's worth the effort?
(In reply to jannis from comment #8) > Do you think it's worth the effort? I don't think so. Just track upstream's progress on this, but at some point we might have to drop the old stuff no matter what.
