app-misc/qlcplus: Actually use Qt6 instead of Qt5

[kripton]

app-misc/qlcplus: Actually use Qt6 instead of Qt5 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/953424

---

Please check all the boxes that apply:

• [x] I can submit this contribution in agreement with the Copyright Policy.
• [x] I have certified the above via adding a Signed-off-by line to every commit in the pull request.
• [x] This contribution has not been created with the assistance of Natural Language Processing artificial intelligence tools, in accordance with the AI policy.
• [x] I have run pkgcheck scan --commits --net to check for issues with my commits.

Please note that all boxes must be checked for the pull request to be merged.

[kripton]

@a17r: This is a fix-up of https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/41452, kindly asking for a review. Thanks :)

[gentoo-bot]

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @kripton Areas affected: ebuilds Packages affected: app-misc/qlcplus

app-misc/qlcplus: @kripton, @gentoo/proxy-maint

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 953424

---

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-04-21 01:23 UTC Newest commit scanned: 44955215eb784d98c944869c41e188a698079902 Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/d630ce0/output.html

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-04-21 13:03 UTC Newest commit scanned: 4a5892385c56c22875f8643dd1cd495ebc546cc3 Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/dc09d21/output.html

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-04-21 14:33 UTC Newest commit scanned: 4d301114548d95b244fe91b8491d5788f4a8d553 Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/5fe7b26/output.html

[PPN-SD]

Could you also add dev-qt/qtsvg ? (strictly only required for runtime)

-- Could NOT find Qt6Svg (missing: Qt6Svg_DIR)
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:44 (find_package):
  Found package configuration file:

[kripton]

Could you also add dev-qt/qtsvg ? (strictly only required for runtime) -- Could NOT find Qt6Svg (missing: Qt6Svg_DIR) CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:44 (find_package): Found package configuration file:

Done, thanks for the hint!

I got a warning from pkgcheck: RdependChange: version 4.14.1: RDEPEND modified without revbump but someone told me that compile fixes should not revbump a package, so I left it at 4.14.1

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-04-21 20:38 UTC Newest commit scanned: 135554adfd1eada6323e86b13855c863980307d5 Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/24da25a/output.html

[thesamesam]

Could you also add dev-qt/qtsvg ? (strictly only required for runtime) -- Could NOT find Qt6Svg (missing: Qt6Svg_DIR) CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:44 (find_package): Found package configuration file:

Done, thanks for the hint!

I got a warning from pkgcheck: RdependChange: version 4.14.1: RDEPEND modified without revbump but someone told me that compile fixes should not revbump a package, so I left it at 4.14.1

You likely misunderstood the advice or the advice was slightly wrong. A lot of people got it wrong before a change I made to the devmanual a while ago.

Quoting https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html:

Examples of changes that can be done without a revision bump are:

• adding a missing build-time dependency that caused a build failure (unless it is also a runtime dependency),

[PPN-SD]

To complete, qlcplus also does not link against dev-qt/qtsvg, It seems quite common for dev-qt/qtsvg.

[dtrauma]

I got a warning from pkgcheck: RdependChange: version 4.14.1: RDEPEND modified without revbump but someone told me that compile fixes should not revbump a package, so I left it at 4.14.1

You likely misunderstood the advice or the advice was slightly wrong. A lot of people got it wrong before a change I made to the devmanual a while ago.

Quoting https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html:

Examples of changes that can be done without a revision bump are:

• adding a missing build-time dependency that caused a build failure (unless it is also a runtime dependency),

To reiterate, I got hit by this bug and since I was missing only a small Qt5 package, solved it by just installing that one. Now I have QLC with wrong deps installed and a silent fix without a revision bump wouldn't fix it for me - who knows how many users that's true for, if they use QLC and happen to have all Qt5 deps.

[kripton]

Sorry it took me so long. While doing the revbump (took me a while to understand why it was actually required), I noticed that the compilation failed on my system. Thus, I added a patch that fixes that by including some more headers in one file.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-06-17 20:51 UTC Newest commit scanned: 91298fded08ee36df27e939a4a30c20ec60da3dc Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/1da0aec/output.html

[kripton]

Upstream released qlcplus 4.14.2 today. @thesamesam : Shall I do the version bump to 4.14.2 in this PR/branch or do you prefer to close this one and make a new one?

[thesamesam]

Could you update this branch then ping me and I will review? Thanks

[kripton]

Could you update this branch then ping me and I will review? Thanks

@thesamesam: Branch updated, thanks

Unit tests all passed and I briefly ran it locally, it all looks good and as expected. The patch I introduced previously is also no longer required since the issue was fixed upstream.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-06-22 22:41 UTC Newest commit scanned: 6ca4e0369a984228746e06bae3dec001883f5157 Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/e0e5b67/output.html

[kripton]

Ping @thesamesam: From my side, this would be ready for review

[kripton]

Upstream just released a new version, I updated the PR to add 4.12.3 instead

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2025-07-04 07:58 UTC Newest commit scanned: 249f147de46abf561413cd3487c6dbd898d5a94c Status: :white_check_mark: good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/bc56834/output.html

[thesamesam]

Thanks!