Re: Bug#1057359: qmake: use qmake6 when QT_SELECT=qt6
Hi,
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:30, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 10:58:44AM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > I use this in my rules when using qt6
> >
> >
> > %:
> > dh $@
> >
> > override_dh_auto_configure:
> > ln -s /usr/bin/qmake6 ./qmake
> > PATH=`pwd`:$(PATH) dh_auto_configure
> >
> > override_dh_auto_clean:
> > $(RM) qmake
> > dh_auto_clean
>
> This is also being used in src:explosive-c4 now and the approach breaks
> cross compilation. Please stop doing this, we'll have to touch all of
> these.
>
> Still the use case is real and we need a better way to build packages
> with qmake6. I was talking with Sune and Lisandro on IRC and their
> consensus seems to have been that qtchooser and QT_SELECT are dead and
> should not be used for Qt6. They suggested that we add add a new
> --buildsystem to debhelper. We already have qmake_qt4 and qmake, why not
> have qmake6? While changing QT_SELECT from qt5 to qt6 would be
> convenient, changing it to "dh $@ --buildsystem qmake6" is easy enough,
> no? The qmake6 build system can reuse qmake just like qmake_qt4 and
> doing it that way immediately makes cross compilation just work (since
> we already have <triplet>-qmake6). Lisandro requested naming it qmake6
> rather than qmake_qt6. Even though this breaks consistency with earlier
> use in debhelper, the similarity to how upstream calls it more
> important.
>
> Salvo and Alexandre, do you second this?
>
> Can I also get some ack from Qt maintainers such that we can move
> forward in consensus?
+1 from me. qtchooser is no longer supported for Qt >= 6, so going
this way is just awesome.
--
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
https://perezmeyer.com.ar/
Reply to: