...at the same time, are you sure this isn't missing dependency on x11-libs/qwt[qt5] USEdep in the first place? The only thing I could find upstream wrt Qt6 is linked in $URL. Nothing on https://gitlab.bacula.org/bacula-community-edition/bacula-community yet.
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #0) > ...at the same time, are you sure this isn't missing dependency on > x11-libs/qwt[qt5] USEdep in the first place? > May be. I will have a look into it. > The only thing I could find upstream wrt Qt6 is linked in $URL. Nothing on > https://gitlab.bacula.org/bacula-community-edition/bacula-community yet. There was some short discussion on the bacula-devel mailing list in january (see https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/message/59122066/ and follow ups). But it seems that it did not go further. If there will be no qt6 port shortly we will have to drop the qt5/6 flags from ebuild. Luckily bacula can be used without the graphical frontend. But I would like to keep it as long as possible. I am working atm on the qt6 ports for qsstv and svxlink. Afterwards I plan to try some work on the bacula problem myself.
(In reply to Thomas Beierlein from comment #1) > If there will be no qt6 port shortly we will have to drop the qt5/6 flags > from ebuild. Luckily bacula can be used without the graphical frontend. > > But I would like to keep it as long as possible. I am working atm on the qt6 > ports for qsstv and svxlink. Afterwards I plan to try some work on the > bacula problem myself. It is not that urgent yet; at least this is not depending on Qt5WebEngine. This bug is mostly for tracking progress.
Just a heads up: Of the 3 remaining Qwt5 revdeps, one is masked, the other has a Qt6 PR work-in-progress; bacula status ... any news upstream?
No news wrt moving to Qt6 upstream. I just send a ping as reminder to the mailing list. But good news wrt qwt. A deeper inspection showed that qwt is no longer used by bacula for some time, but documentation is still scattered with discussion about its need. Tried successful to build bacula without qwt (and also without qtsvg). So drop both from stable build or (I think better) make a new revision and wait till stable. What do you think?
If you want to play it safe, you can start another stabilisation period, but if there are no traces of qwt in the actual source anymore I see no reason to wait all that long before CCing arches.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=18b263a0b54c2a172ea842bbf78e0b6a761b8c5f commit 18b263a0b54c2a172ea842bbf78e0b6a761b8c5f Author: Thomas Beierlein <tomjbe@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2025-05-29 06:00:00 +0000 Commit: Thomas Beierlein <tomjbe@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2025-05-29 06:00:19 +0000 app-backup/bacula: Drop no longer needed dependencies Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/952935 Signed-off-by: Thomas Beierlein <tomjbe@gentoo.org> app-backup/bacula/bacula-15.0.3-r1.ebuild | 457 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 457 insertions(+)
