Bug 2212302 - Need xcb-util-cursor and dev packages in the default RHEL 9 repo
Summary: Need xcb-util-cursor and dev packages in the default RHEL 9 repo
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
Classification: Red Hat
Component: distribution
Version: 9.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Olivier Fourdan
QA Contact: Release Test Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-05 08:41 UTC by cavendish.qi+fedora
Modified: 2023-08-14 12:40 UTC (History)
17 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-06-05 11:13:09 UTC
Type: Story
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-158963 0 None None None 2023-06-05 11:16:12 UTC

Description cavendish.qi+fedora 2023-06-05 08:41:05 UTC
Description of problem: 
There are some (commercial) users who only can access the default RHEL 9 repos, and Qt 6.5 starts to use xcb-util-cursor instead of Xlib/libXcursor, then they can't build and use Qt 6.5 with the packages only from default RHEL 9 repos.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.1.3


How reproducible: consistent


Actual results: There is no xcb-util-cursor in the default RHEL 9 repo.


Expected results: Include xcb-util-cursor in the default RHEL 9 repo.


Additional info: xcb packages(including xcb-util-cursor) should be considered infrastructure packages.

Comment 1 cavendish.qi+fedora 2023-06-05 08:43:23 UTC
See also the original request in Qt Project, https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-113647 .

Comment 2 Josh Boyer 2023-06-05 11:13:09 UTC
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 does not offer the Qt6 stack, and has no plans to add it at this time.  We would suggest using the EPEL repository for xcb-util-cursor and Qt6.

If a Red Hat Enterprise Linux customer needs Qt6, please file a customer portal case so we can track and manage the request correctly.

Comment 3 Tomas Popela 2023-06-05 11:30:09 UTC
This request was already pre-approved internally by Carlos and members of sst_gpu.

Comment 5 Carlos Soriano 2023-06-05 12:10:21 UTC
(In reply to Tomas Popela from comment #3)
> This request was already pre-approved internally by Carlos and members of
> sst_gpu.

Just to clarify Tomas comment, we're open to evaluate inclusion of packages in certain repositories (which ones TBD), but we still need internal discussion after we receive an official request. I think having an official customer request is a good first step, but we still didn't go through the internal evaluation process. Apologies if that was misinterpreted on my side.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.