jamesdsp: build with qt6

[Tungsten842]

Description of changes

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/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 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.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[getchoo]

We may want to make a jamesdsp-qt5? But I'm not sure what the upstream situation looks like. Otherwise LGTM

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 330388 run on x86_64-linux 1

2 packages built:

• jamesdsp
• jamesdsp-pulse

[Tungsten842]

We may want to make a jamesdsp-qt5? But I'm not sure what the upstream situation looks like. Otherwise LGTM

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 330388 run on x86_64-linux 1
2 packages built:

They explicitly recommend using Qt6, and the official Flatpak uses Qt6 as well. I don't really see any reason for having a Qt5 variant.