Sigil-2.5.0 Released

[DiapDealer]

I AM noticing some considerable lag between the Arch-supplied Sigil 2.5 (using the system Qt6.9) and the AppImage build of Sigil 2.5 (with Qt6.8.2).

But I was already getting general rendering warnings when Arch went to Qt6.9.x. Something to do with GBM not being supported by the proprietary Nvidia drivers. I blame it on the general QtWebEngine video card failures early in the Qt6.9 series.

EDIT: just noticed the availability of a qt6-webengine update (6.9.0-7) and a Nvidia driver update. I'll see if they have any impact.

Yes, the 6.9.0-7 update is supposed to make sure the ANGLE GL backend does not get forced (as well as updating the chromium included). I'd be surprised if it didn't make a difference.

[RbnJrg]

Originally Posted by KevinH

So are you sure you are using the official release build?

Yes, I'm very sure

Could this be caused by Qt6.9.x related changes?

Maybe. Archlinux's Sigil uses Qt6.9.0.

Please try the official AppImage version. It uses Qt 6.8.2. Does it exhibit the same issues on your machine?

No, it doesn't; the appimage works flawlessly. In fact and curious, if I open Archlinux's Sigil when the appimage is running, the official release works quite well.

[DiapDealer]

I don't notice any difference in the lag time any more after updating qt6-webengine and my nvidia drivers. The system Sigil 2.5 (with Qt6.9.0) seems as snappy as the Sigil 2.5. AppImage (with Qt6.8.2).

I'm still getting this annoying when launching Sigil with the system Qt6.9.0:

Warning: GBM is not supported with the current configuration. Fallback to Vulkan rendering in Chromium.

I don't like it that I don't seem to be getting any hardware acceleration when using qt6-webengine-6.9.0. but it's not a deal-breaker by any means.

[dearleuk]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

proprietary Nvidia drivers. .

Yup. Different pc, no Nvidia card and the plugins work perfectly on Ubuntu Mate

[RbnJrg]

A question, how is it possible that the image has the same toolbars, clips, and layout as my Archlinux version of Sigil?

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll be honest: at this point, I wouldn't blame anyone for not worrying about providing support for pre-2.0 PyQt5. Just leave a version that still works with pre-2.0 Sigil and make a new one that works with PySide6. With the AppImage and the ability to use virtual Python environments for plugins, there's very few people that can't get PySide6 available for Sigil plugins.

Of course anyone who wants to continue using plugin_utils as a compatibility layer between the old and the new will receive bonus points!

How much of your special QApplication wrapper from plugin_utils.py is still needed?

Should we be pulling out the old PyQt5 and compatibility code just leaving PySide6 and whatever QApplication wrappering it still needed and adding the much smaller resulting plugin_utils.py to be part of Sigil's official internal plugin launcher code?

Might be a good idea.

Thoughts?

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by RbnJrg

A question, how is it possible that the image has the same toolbars, clips, and layout as my Archlinux version of Sigil?

If you mean AppImage, then it has the Qt 6.8.2 qpa platform plugins that are probably largely unchanged in Qt 6.9.0-7

FWIW, Qt 6.9.0 has so many Linux graphics bugs (especially in Qt WebEngine) due to a complete backend graphics overhaul, that I would personally wait for the very soon to be released Qt 6.9.1 or even Qt 6.9.2 before considering it to be as stable as Qt 6.8.2 or Qt 6.8.3.

But Arch updating stops for nothing!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by RbnJrg

A question, how is it possible that the image has the same toolbars, clips, and layout as my Archlinux version of Sigil?

Because it uses the same preferences location as any other Sigil. Same window geometry, same plugins, same everything.

The AppImage is not a portable version.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by KevinH

How much of your special QApplication wrapper from plugin_utils.py is still needed?

Should we be pulling out the old PyQt5 and compatibility code just leaving PySide6 and whatever QApplication wrappering it still needed and adding the much smaller resulting plugin_utils.py to be part of Sigil's official internal plugin launcher code?

Might be a good idea.

Thoughts?

I was thinking much the same thing. The application wrappering is still handy for a variety of things, but maybe a "light" version with no PyQt5 compatibility stuff is in order.

[RbnJrg]

I must work with the appimage because with the official version of Sigil for Archlinux the lag is still there; it comes and goes; at times it disappears, but I don't know why it reappears. I wouldn't be surprised if Diap tests again his Linux version and also finds the lag again. With the appimage all works fine.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by RbnJrg

I must work with the appimage because with the official version of Sigil for Archlinux the lag is still there; it comes and goes; at times it disappears, but I don't know why it reappears. I wouldn't be surprised if Diap tests again his Linux version and also finds the lag again. With the appimage all works fine.

You could be right. I don't _think_ I had both versions open at the same time when I was doing my earlier testing, but I can't be entirely sure.

[DiapDealer]

In case anyone is looking, I moved several posts (discussion about potential future tkinter removal from Sigil's plugin environment) to their own thread.

Feel free to continue it here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=368397

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In case anyone is looking, I moved several posts (discussion about potential future tkinter removal from Sigil's plugin environment) to their own thread.

Feel free to continue it here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=368397

A new dedicated thread is a good idea... so I moved a few more of my own there as well.

[KevinH]

I just finished editing the Sigil Plugin Framework epub to version 15. That epub uses enormous amounts of empty lines to help make the code structure clearer.

That really triggered the temporary loss of sync between CodeView and Preview that exists when a cursor is on whitespace between tags. After about an hour of editing, I was ready to pull what little hair still exists on my head out!

Since the fix for this already exists in master, I am beginning to think we should plan a fast follow-on release of just Sigil 2.5.1 with what we have now(or will soon).

Am I over-reacting or do people hate the jumping around based on whitespace cursor placement as much as I do?

Any thoughts?

[DiapDealer]

The issue doesn't really impact me at all, but even so... I have no issues with doing a follow-up 2.5.1 in the near future.