-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 237
Build: Bump Qt6 from 6.8.1 to 6.9.1 (Automated PR) #3407
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
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ jobs: | |
| - config_name: MacOS (artifacts) | ||
| target_os: macos | ||
| building_on_os: macos-14 | ||
| base_command: QT_VERSION=6.8.1 SIGN_IF_POSSIBLE=1 TARGET_ARCHS="x86_64 arm64" ./.github/autobuild/mac.sh | ||
| base_command: QT_VERSION=6.9.1 SIGN_IF_POSSIBLE=1 TARGET_ARCHS="x86_64 arm64" ./.github/autobuild/mac.sh | ||
| # Disable CodeQL on mac as it interferes with signing the binaries (signing hangs, see #2563 and #2564) | ||
| run_codeql: false | ||
| # Latest Xcode which runs on macos-14: | ||
|
|
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ jobs: | |
| - config_name: iOS (artifacts) | ||
| target_os: ios | ||
| building_on_os: macos-14 | ||
| base_command: QT_VERSION=6.7.3 ./.github/autobuild/ios.sh | ||
| base_command: QT_VERSION=6.9.1 ./.github/autobuild/ios.sh | ||
|
||
| # Build failed with CodeQL enabled when last tested 03/2022 (#2490). | ||
| # There are no hints that iOS is supposed to be supported by CodeQL. | ||
| # Therefore, disable it: | ||
|
|
||
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.
If we split
x86_64andarm64, could we run CodeQL on thearm64build? Currently MacOS doesn't get covered except in the legacy build, which is going to get switched off at some point. Given we must have the code right for arm64, it feels like that's the architecture that should get checked?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
If we have both architectures, we produce universal builds which is way simpler for the user. We have one binary which runs on M series macs and intel macs. I would rather build those for a bit more (Partly also because I don't own an Apple Silicon mac).
Yes, it would be good to have CodeQL on the non legacy build. But note that arm and x86 builds would need to be signed.
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.
Spin the CodeQL off into a separate flow from the signed build? If it's working off the same git checkout and uses the same build params (without signing), that'll be good enough. Anyway, separate issue.