https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255537 Bug ID: 2255537 Summary: Review Request: python3-pyside6 - Python bindings for Qt 6 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: alex.p@freedom.press QA Contact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/apyrgio/python3-pyside6-rpm/blob/main/python3-pyside6.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/apyrgio/python3-pyside6-rpm/releases/tag/6.6.1 Description: PySide6 is the official Python module from the Qt for Python project, which provides access to the complete Qt 6.0+ framework. Fedora Account System Username: - --- Hi everyone, This is a draft proposal for a PySide6 package. In this iteration, we actually package the Python wheels for PySide6, which have Qt 6 libraries baked-in. This means that this package is NOT suitable yet for inclusion in the Fedora repos. Brief backstory, I'm one of the maintainers of Dangerzone [1], and we recently got bit by the fact that python3-pyside2 is no longer maintained [2]. This means that, starting from Fedora 39, we cannot offer Dangerzone to our Fedora and Qubes users. Since our users add our RPM repo in order to install Dangerzone, we considered offering PySide6 as a separate package. Looking more into this, we realized that this is not a simple task. PySide2/6 depends on private Qt APIs, whose stability is not guaranteed even between patch versions [3]. This means that our PySide6 package would have to be totally in sync with the system Qt 6 package, else we would introduce conflicts during upgrades. This level of synchronization is not feasible for a third-party repo. So, the next best option is to package the PySide6 Python wheels, which have the Qt 6 libraries baked-in. The linked spec and SRPM files are the result of this work. This approach has several drawbacks (increased package size, no reusability, prebuilt libraries), but it's probably the simplest way forward for a third-party project like ours. A better approach would be to officially package PySide6, but we would need a sponsor who has some extra familiarity with PySide2/6, to help us with the process. The fact that neither Debian nor Fedora offer PySide6 is probably an indication that this is not a simple task, but we could spend some cycles there. In the meantime, we will roll out our package to our users, meaning that a python3-pyside6 package will be installed in some systems soon. Any pointers on how it's best to roll this out in a forward-compatible way [4] would be very appreciated. Cheers, Alex [1]: https://dangerzone.rocks [2]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3080 [3]: Similar discussion on the effect of private Qt APIs on Qt5 packages: https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg303269.html [4]: My guess is probably add it at some point in fedora-obsolete-packages, once the official package is out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255537 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202255537%23c0 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
