[3/3] qt5quick1, qt5script, qt5webkit: tag as deprecated

Signed-off-by: Julien Corjon <corjon.j@ecagroup.com>
---
 package/qt5/Config.in                    | 9 +++++----
 package/qt5/qt5quick1/Config.in          | 6 +++++-
 package/qt5/qt5script/Config.in          | 6 +++++-
 package/qt5/qt5webkit-examples/Config.in | 6 +++++-
 package/qt5/qt5webkit/Config.in          | 6 +++++-
 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Julien,

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 07:20:54 +0000, Julien CORJON wrote:

> diff --git a/package/qt5/Config.in b/package/qt5/Config.in
> index e8ec7d9..49e3450 100644
> --- a/package/qt5/Config.in
> +++ b/package/qt5/Config.in
> @@ -36,15 +36,16 @@ source "package/qt5/qt5enginio/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5graphicaleffects/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5imageformats/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5multimedia/Config.in"
> -source "package/qt5/qt5quick1/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5quickcontrols/Config.in"
> -source "package/qt5/qt5script/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5sensors/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5serialport/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5svg/Config.in"
> -source "package/qt5/qt5webkit/Config.in"
> -source "package/qt5/qt5webkit-examples/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5websockets/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5x11extras/Config.in"
>  source "package/qt5/qt5xmlpatterns/Config.in"
> +comment "Depracated Qt modules"

Deprecated

but I don't think it's really worth to have them in a separate part of
the menu, since all of them already have a "(deprecated)" indication in
their prompt.

However, I'm wondering if we should not simply make them depend on
BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_2015_08. But that will make them disappear
completely by default, unless the user enables BR2_DEPRECATED.

Actually, our deprecation/removal process is a bit weird: deprecated
should be a smoother thing than removal. But in practice, when we
deprecate something by making it 'depends on
BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_YYYY_MM', it gets automatically removed from your
configuration without any notification (unless you enable manually
BR2_DEPRECATED, of course). While if we remove it entirely, we add it
to Config.in.legacy, and the users upgrading get a clear notification.

So users are better notified of removals than deprecations.

Arnout, what do you think about this?

Thomas

Thomas,

Le 03/07/2015 09:43, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit :
> Julien,
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 07:20:54 +0000, Julien CORJON wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/package/qt5/Config.in b/package/qt5/Config.in
...
>> +comment "Depracated Qt modules"
>
> Deprecated

Will be fix in a V2.

>
> but I don't think it's really worth to have them in a separate part of
> the menu, since all of them already have a "(deprecated)" indication in
> their prompt.

I'm ok with that

>
> However, I'm wondering if we should not simply make them depend on
> BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_2015_08. But that will make them disappear
> completely by default, unless the user enables BR2_DEPRECATED.
>
> Actually, our deprecation/removal process is a bit weird: deprecated
> should be a smoother thing than removal. But in practice, when we
> deprecate something by making it 'depends on
> BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_YYYY_MM', it gets automatically removed from your
> configuration without any notification (unless you enable manually
> BR2_DEPRECATED, of course). While if we remove it entirely, we add it
> to Config.in.legacy, and the users upgrading get a clear notification.
>
> So users are better notified of removals than deprecations.
>
> Arnout, what do you think about this?

For now Qt tag these 3 modules as deprecated but they did not reach the 
end of life.

In my opinion, users who start a new design should be informed that in 
the near future these modules will not be supported anymore when user 
who need to bump Qt for they existing design (as we do) should be able 
to do that without loosing they already existing configuration.

For these reasons I don't think we should use 
BR2_DEPRECATED_SINC_YYYY_MM neither add them to Config.in.legacy since 
this is not a Buildroot issue but a Qt one.

At the end, when Qt will stop provide these module, we should add them 
to Config.in.legacy.

>
> Thomas
>

On 07/03/15 10:55, Julien CORJON wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Le 03/07/2015 09:43, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit :
[snip]
>> However, I'm wondering if we should not simply make them depend on
>> BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_2015_08. But that will make them disappear
>> completely by default, unless the user enables BR2_DEPRECATED.
>>
>> Actually, our deprecation/removal process is a bit weird: deprecated
>> should be a smoother thing than removal. But in practice, when we
>> deprecate something by making it 'depends on
>> BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_YYYY_MM', it gets automatically removed from your
>> configuration without any notification (unless you enable manually
>> BR2_DEPRECATED, of course). While if we remove it entirely, we add it
>> to Config.in.legacy, and the users upgrading get a clear notification.
>>
>> So users are better notified of removals than deprecations.
>>
>> Arnout, what do you think about this?

 Good point indeed. But I don't see a simple solution. We could use the same
approach as for legacy (selecting a symbol and printing a big fat warning
comment), but then it's easy for a user to accidentally select one of the
deprecated options, and that's exactly what we want to avoid.

 So we'd have to look for things like temporarily enabling
BR2_DEPRECATED_SINCE_* through the environment when 'make oldconfig' is run, or
when one of the deprecated packages was selected before you do 'make
menuconfig', but not when you do 'make menuconfig' from the beginning. It
quickly becomes pretty dirty... Something for Yann, perhaps :-)

> 
> For now Qt tag these 3 modules as deprecated but they did not reach the 
> end of life.
> 
> In my opinion, users who start a new design should be informed that in 
> the near future these modules will not be supported anymore when user 
> who need to bump Qt for they existing design (as we do) should be able 
> to do that without loosing they already existing configuration.

 +1 to that. In fact, qt5quick1 and qt5script are both compatibility layers for
qt4 legacy, just like BR2_PACKAGE_QT_QT3SUPPORT. So they were 'deprecated' from
the beginning. So instead of (deprecated), perhaps (legacy compatibility) is a
better tag.

 But that doesn't really fit with our rule of thumb that menu entries should be
just the package name. Therefore, I'm more in favour of moving this stuff in a
separate area with a comment delimiter as Julien originally proposed. But then
without the (deprecated) tag.


 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> For these reasons I don't think we should use 
> BR2_DEPRECATED_SINC_YYYY_MM neither add them to Config.in.legacy since 
> this is not a Buildroot issue but a Qt one.
> 
> At the end, when Qt will stop provide these module, we should add them 
> to Config.in.legacy.
> 
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>