Re: packaging qt apps for debian
2010/10/2 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM, David Kalnischkies
> <kalnischkies+debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/10/2 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>:
>>> Are there any pointers/policy/howtos for using qmake (rather than
>>> configure) for deb-packaging?
>>
>> Do you know debhelper? debhelper (>= 7.4.12) should have support
>> for the qmake buildsystem built-in, so you should be able to use its
>> tiny example rules file (i am guessing here).
>
> Doing some googling (starting debhelper) I find that cdbs is an
> alternative to debhelper
> and has a ready qmake class:
>
> http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html#id2561450
>
> So you think it maybe better to go the cdbs->qmake-class way?
cdbs vs. dh ( vs. debhelper) is mostly personal preference -
and the choice is yours!
I don't want to force you to use one or another as the maintainers doesn't
pay me for doing so (and even if they did…) - but i am pretty sure that
both are perfectly capable to work with qmake. ;)
Maybe the packaging of other qt applications can give you an idea.
With qt specific question your are maybe better of with the kde-qt-team.
>> More general as you are working on tartini it would be a good idea
>> to take the RFP for it, its bug #515003 [0].
>
> Ok I'll use that after a satisfactory packaging
Its good practice to grep the RFP and make it an Intend to package (ITP)
before starting to work on it. Imagine someone else being interested
in this software, seeing the RFP, starts working on it and a few days later
he has something partly working with debhelper, you have in the meantime
done something with cdbs and the result is that the work of one of the two
can go straight to /dev/null - a pure waste. If one of the two had announced
his intension the other could have worked on something else - or they could
have worked together - at least the invested time wouldn't be wasted.
So don't be shy, grep it while its hot! In the unlikely event that you can't
make it, its easy to retitle the bug again to a RFP, but as said, thats
unlikely, the list here will help you to get you going again if you are stuck,
which is again (of course) unlikely. :)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: jftr: I am not a D{D,M} so take everything i say with a pinch of salt.
Reply to: