qt5.qutebrowser: reinit at 3.0.2

[ghost]

Description of changes

Our qutebrowser package was vandalized by various commits, such as c9cc3a2 and ad0bbaf, which made erroneous assertions such as "since qutebrowser 3.0.0 the derivation is only building for qt6."

This commit repairs the vandalism.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[ghost]

@ofborg build qt5.qutebrowser

[ghost]

@ofborg eval

[ghost]

• qt5.qutebrowser on aarch64-linux — Success Details

• qt5.qutebrowser on x86_64-linux — Success Details

[dotlambda]

What's wrong with #251671? That looks much simpler.

[dotlambda]

That was fixed by #262813.

[nrdxp]

This commit repairs the vandalism.

sorry but I don't think its considered vandalism to not support a browser backend which is severely outdated and probaby rife with security vulnerabilities at this point. It was a conscious decision and one recommended by upstream.

In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to support this, but if you really want to, you should probably have some sort of warning during eval that the browser backend is the insecure.

[rnhmjoj]

Our qutebrowser package was vandalized by various commits, such as c9cc3a2 and ad0bbaf

Now this is getting ridiculous. I don't really understand how could anyone get so worked up on something so trivial, but please drop this.

As multiple persons have already told you, it didn't make sense to support the old backend active as it is both outdated (even basic web apps such as discourse refuse to work) and insecure. Also, having two variants of qutebrowser in the same expression made it more complicated and it was a hassle to maintain.

IIRC you want to keep Qt5 because Qt6 does not cross compile, right? I would tell you to work on fixing Qt6 instead, but I guess it's ok to keep a copy of the package with Qt pinned at Qt 5.15, like it's usually done for libraries like boost, etc. Downgrading the default package, however it's not an option.
Also, I think you should be maintaing this copy of the package, or at least add yourself to the qutebrowser maintainers.

Anyway, I don't understand the purpose of this PR considering that #251671 does exactly the same thing, sans the bit about the qt5. namespace. This, by the way, has always been used for collecting the Qt modules, so moving qutebrowser there doesn't make sense to me.

[dotlambda]

These commits were merged in #264965 without making requested changes.

[zimbatm]

@amjoseph-nixpkgs nixpkgs is a shared resource, and we have to find ways to work together. For this to work it's important that:

1. we don't assume people are doing things maliciously. Using terms like "vandalize" is antagonizing.
2. when feedback is given, some form of acknowledgement of understanding is given back. Nixpkgs is a big negotiation exercise and it doesn't work if some actors are doing things one-sided.
3. this also goes for self-merging PRs. Some sort of shared understanding needs to be developed.

If there are things frustrating you then let's find ways to make it smoother. Please DM me if you would like to discuss this privately.