-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PR: Backport of PR 22196 (Make QtWebEngine Optional) #22198
PR: Backport of PR 22196 (Make QtWebEngine Optional) #22198
Conversation
I have a quick question for you: do you think this is really necessary for the
|
I find that if you are supporting both, fixing "import errors" makes it really difficult to backport future fixes in the long term. Given I had already done the work, I figured I could do the backport to test. Honestly, I've been somewhat managing the cf qt-webengine for Qt5, but at one point, it will break..... We can definitely "delay" since I got this patch in: but yea..... if you want to have an future release of 5.X, this backport would make future backports easier. Whether or not you decide to remove the pyqtwebengine from the conda-forge releases. |
Ok, but our workflow is doing forward-porting, i.e. PRs are opened against But given that PR #22196 is almost ready, I think it's better to merge that first and do a manual backport (i.e. taking that PR's full patch and applying it to If you feel comfortable doing that, then please go ahead and apply the patch to this branch in a single commit (and drop your current ones). If not, I can do it for you. |
Ok but I think I needed: |
cf31ad4
to
dbcf9df
Compare
Without:
|
PS. there are some merge conflicts between the 6.x branch (master) and 5.x branch. I've been fixing them but for now there is 1 commit in both branches that has "my suggestions" in a single commit. let me know if there is anything else to do. |
Note that this includes the other backport that I needed. |
Right, let's try to merge that one first, then we'll return to this one. |
@hmaarrfk, a rebase on top of the latest |
dbcf9df
to
7c8356b
Compare
(I made it a draft to make it a little harder to merge until my last question is addressed) |
7c8356b
to
f2a3ef4
Compare
Without updating the setup file I get:
|
I've reverted the changes to setup.py Well i'm ok with this as is, for conda packages, we can always have a 1 line patch that removes the dependency. (Of course this would have to be a decision the maintainers at conda-forge including yourself are OK with, but I often release my own packages to move more at my pace while things go through the regular QC) I feel like dealing with |
f2a3ef4
to
0cfb35c
Compare
Thank you so much for helping with this alltogether, I know this kind of churn is tiring. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One last suggestion, then this should be ready.
No worries 👍🏽 |
0b0732d
to
b8a9094
Compare
Agreed (I saw that you opened another PR about it).
Ok, that's going to be tricky because we don't want to loose support for WebEngine for the PyQt versions that still support it. So, I guess we'll have to create a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @hmaarrfk!
Yeah, i'm somewhat perfectly fine maintaining small sets of patches (for my own channel) for "integration" so long as the "core features" are supported upstream. I do dream of a day where we can just compile qt6-webengine at conda-forge, but it is just difficult.... |
xref: #22196
Affirmation
By submitting this Pull Request or typing my (user)name below,
I affirm the Developer Certificate of Origin
with respect to all commits and content included in this PR,
and understand I am releasing the same under Spyder's MIT (Expat) license.
I certify the above statement is true and correct:
Mark Harfouche hmaarrfk