[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#904688: qttools-opensource-src: FTBFS: please drop the libclang-dev B-D on some architectures



El viernes, 27 de julio de 2018 10:56:49 -03 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 
escribió:
> On 07/27/2018 03:51 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> >> I'm 99% sure it's not a hard dependency. It's a documentation utility.
> > 
> > Which is then used by many packages, please check the other mail I have
> > just sent.
> 
> For building documentation in binary-arch packages? Again, we should not
> allow that. It's a waste of disk space and buildd capacity, it's also
> something that the QA tests will complain about.
> 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>> If for some reason a package build it's doc on an arch-specific build it
> >>> will FTBFS.
> >> 
> >> Then this package is clearly buggy. Documentation is arch-independent and
> >> should never be built per architecture.
> > 
> > You have a point here.
> 
> Ok, so you agree.

Agreed on: packages should not be using qdoc while building arch:any packages. 
Yes, I agree.

Let's wait for your build, but I think you will need to patch the build system 
too.

By the way, qtcreator will start requiring clang too in the next upload. They 
ditched they internal parser in favor of clang, which is clearly better and 
more supported. As I understand this is a plugin, but I don't know how easy 
would be to turn it off, and if the previous parser will still be available.

> > Mm, just noticed you sign as Adrian and not as John, will try to remember
> > that.
> 
> Yes, I go by Adrian despite the order. Don't ask why. My mother thought
> it was funny :P.

I have three names and two surnames, so believe me I have the feeling I 
understand you ;-)


-- 
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: