Re: Rethinking Qt headers (should the header packages be recombined?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2003 15:11, Martin Loschwitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 12:16:44AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> libqt3-dev/libqt3-mt-dev should not depend on libqt-3-compat-headers since
> that would, as you can probably imagine, completely nullify the package's
> intention. Anyway, the fact that kdelibs4-dev does not depend on the
> package yet is probably caused by the fact that it got not updated for
> recent changes. That is on calcs TODO, I guess.
>
> But that solution won't even be of long breath since, as far as I remember,
> Ralf said that he cut all references to headers from libqt3-compat-headers
> out of the KDE3-CVS (Was it in BRANCH or HEAD? Both? Don't remember,
> sorry.)
Almost all of KDE CVS should be working without the compat-headers, at least
BRANCH does now and HEAD will follow as soon as we go on packaging HEAD
again. It's simply doable by runnning fixincludes from kdesdk in the source
directory to make apps/packages compile. This is a job that is too easy for
users, packagers and developers without having to recompile everything, just
run fixincludes, if you only want to compile an app, you're fine, if you're a
packager make a diff and send it upstream. That was the intention of the
compat-headers package because it will improve any app that has been made
using Qt in its source base, and thus will help the quality of free software
in general.
> Having -DQT_NO_COMPAT as default compile option for qmake would probably
> not be too difficult to realize. I think adding this value to qmake.conf
> should almost do the job.
No, this has nothing to do with qmake at all as that wouldn't cover automake
projects either. You have to specify CPPFLAGS=-DQT_NO_COMPAT before running a
configure so it gets picked up for automake projects. So we don't have to nor
do we want to change anything about qmake at all here. I'm glad that we have
stripped the whole Qt package mess out after working on the package for full
4 weeks and there's no way that we're going to mess it up again :)
Ben, I know that it's been a bit troublesome but OTOH we could have just used
libqt3-compat-headers and do nothing in KDE CVS. Instead, we used fixincludes
to fix the BRANCH so that it doesn't depend on the package.
Getting rid of these compat headers is task #1 to get better quality
sourcecode working with Qt 3, packagers will have some work with Qt 3
packages as well to make them all pick up libqt-mt correctly also.
The main reason is the long-term goal, not the short term "it doesn't compile
for me, I had to read the README.Debian" thing. There are several really cool
things now like that qmake works perfect for any given Qt package made with
qmake (and there are a lot popping up recently already, altough qmake sucks
for make install). And we can improve the software packages. Which means, the
next version of Debian is prepared for anything that is going beyond Qt 3 as
best as it can be, and also the packages that debian contains. The reason to
strip the compat-headers out is to only give programmers exactly those files
that they're supposed to be using, not files that they shouldn't be using at
all. And compiling and packaging isn't the only thing that Qt is intended to
be good for, it's mainly for developers developing new software :)
So, please let's stay with the packages now. The experience of the whole
restructured thing is very very new to most people, developers, packagers and
users. If it hadn't been such a mess it would have been easier for them now
but unfortunately that wasn't the case. It had to be done sooner or later and
I'm glad we're finished with that, waiting longer would have been a crime
against the quality of debian and free software :)
Ralf
PS: I didn't take the time to write a lengthy README.Debian for Qt to explain
everything for people not to read it. So if you don't know what to do if you
hit a problem with the packages, RTFM :)
>
> Anyway, let's see what Ralf thinks about this issue.
>
> > Ben. :)
- --
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden@kde.org
The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+XRCou0nKi+w1Ky8RAtIZAJ0Z8v+xFZtuNii4/563BrnSZIC1sACfT5Lk
PzKtLb71A3fvs0D6Gg2p4B8=
=geGi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: