Qt 6.1 Beta Released With Porting More Modules To Qt6

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Qt 6.1 Beta Released With Porting More Modules To Qt6

The first beta is out today of the forthcoming Qt 6.1 toolkit...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-6.1-Beta-Released

[ssokolow]

So, still no Qt Multimedia? The only one of the modules missing from 6.0 that I actually use?

[chromer]

When to expect KDE to migrate to Qt 6 ?

[tuaris]

Mostly unrelated question but maybe someone can help clarify what what is the relation between Digia and Qt? Wikipedia seems to disagree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Project#Governance

Digia retains all trademarks around Qt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)#Merging_and_demerging_with_Digia

In September 2014, Digia transferred the Qt business and copyrights to their wholly owned subsidiary, The Qt Company .... In May 2016, Digia and Qt demerged completely into two independent companies.

[Mark625]

When to expect KDE to migrate to Qt 6 ?

Why would they do that? Now that Qt Company is no longer putting out LTS releases for open source users, how could anyone base a big project like KDE on a constantly moving target? I think they will eventually have to bite the bullet and fork Qt for their own sanity. That, or at least keep their own GPL-only patch set for whatever Qt release is chosen to base KDE releases on. Let Qt Company go off and support their proprietary embedded stuff on their own.

[cl333r]

Why would they do that? Now that Qt Company is no longer putting out LTS releases for open source users, how could anyone base a big project like KDE on a constantly moving target? I think they will eventually have to bite the bullet and fork Qt for their own sanity. That, or at least keep their own GPL-only patch set for whatever Qt release is chosen to base KDE releases on. Let Qt Company go off and support their proprietary embedded stuff on their own.

Yeah, the question isn't about when we get KDE 6 but whether Qt6 will die eventually if no serious maintainer/company forks it.

I say, Intel, Google and Canonical should fund this.

[CommunityMember]

So, still no Qt Multimedia? The only one of the modules missing from 6.0 that I actually use?

Multimedia is targeted (along with a number of other modules/libraries/functionality) for the Qt 6.2 release, as has been stated in the main Qt 6 articles by Michael previously.

Last I checked, Qt 6.2 (which should be an LTS release) still has a September(ish) release date.

[ssokolow]

Multimedia is targeted (along with a number of other modules/libraries/functionality) for the Qt 6.2 release, as has been stated in the main Qt 6 articles by Michael previously.

Last I checked, Qt 6.2 (which should be an LTS release) still has a September(ish) release date.

Huh. I must've missed that part. Probably one of the days I didn't sleep well.

[Mark625]

Multimedia is targeted (along with a number of other modules/libraries/functionality) for the Qt 6.2 release, as has been stated in the main Qt 6 articles by Michael previously.

Last I checked, Qt 6.2 (which should be an LTS release) still has a September(ish) release date.

In what way will 6.2 be LTS? Paying customers only? The last I heard, there will be no open-source updates to any Qt release after the next point release is, uh, released. So for any given 6.x release, there might be one or two 6.x.y bugfix releases. But as soon as 6.(x+1) is released, there will be no more bug fix releases to 6.x. This includes security updates as well as any patches submitted by open source contributors. So the only way to get security fixes is to move to the next release, which always introduce new "features" and sometimes break, deprecate, or drop existing APIs.

Clearly they (the Qt Co.) must see the open-source community as moochers, not contributors.

I think that if the open-source community has enough resources to support Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, and hundreds of other projects, we could also support an LGPL-only fork of Qt. It could be much more limited in scope than commercial Qt. It would only need to support Core and Widget APIs on the three main platforms: Linux, Windows, and Mac. Of course now there are M1 Macs, so who knows.

Cheers!

[JackLilhammers]

Mark625

• While tQtC has done an awful move, which I hope backfires spectacularly, and I'm totally in favour of a community supported lts version, I also think that it's unlikely to affect distributions in any meaningul way
• Qt minor releases are source and binary backwards compatible, so getting security fixes shouldn't be much of an issue
• Regarding Apple ARM support, it's been worked on, of course.

I don't think that their sh*tty move was about the community, but rather against the many businesses using the free version.
That said, it still was a spit in the face of the community and those businesses that were not buying a license before won't start now, because their commercial offering sucks for anyone who's not a behemoth