lars.knoll at qt.io
Thu Sep 19 11:08:23 CEST 2019
> On 19 Sep 2019, at 11:00, Mutz, Marc via Development <development at qt-project.org> wrote:
> From a comment by Ville on Gerrit, I take that:
> On 2019-09-19 10:41, Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
>> So, I update my requests:
>> 1. List a maintainer for INTEGRITY in https://wiki.qt.io/Maintainers
> That person seems to be Ville.
>> 2. That maintainer should either find the missing linker flag, or file
>> a bug with Integrity
> It looks like a bug, and a report has been filed
>> 3. If there's a work-around (providing those missing functions in Qt,
>> e.g.), apply it, else
> A work-around (or fix) is in the works by the vendor, but won't be available in time for 5.14, ...
>> 4. drop Integrity support (or update to a newer version) ASAP (for Qt
>> 5.15 if not 5.14).
> ... but for 5.15.
> Which reduces all these to the following request:
> - temporarily drop Integrity from 5.15 CI until the fix is there
Not a good idea because we don’t know whether a fix will come in time and dropping it from CI can lead to other platform regressions. You’re potentially adding lots of work for other people to get your one patch through. And as said there’s an option of working around by simply keeping the old code for INTEGRITY only if you really want it in 5.15.
> If that is not possible, I hereby request a feature branch for this (say, wip/wait_condition), so work can continue and either be merged into 5.15 or 6, depending on availability of the fix.
Why? If the above is too much work, simply drop the feature for 5.15 and go straight to 6.0.
More information about the Development