Bug#1001759: RFS: qt6/6.2.2+ds-1 -- Qt for Android (x86_64)
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:46:55 +0100 Fab Stz <fabstz-it@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le mercredi 15 décembre 2021, 16:22:41 CET Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Having a source package named "qt6" build Android-specific packages sounds
> > wrong to me.
>
> I understand. I gave it that name to be at least distinct from the other qt6
> packages. This can be changed to anything more suitable like qt6-android or
> whatever.
Yes please.
> > Is this intended to contain the normal Qt source code and so
> > be a duplicate of normal Qt packages?
>
> It can't be duplicate to DFSG Qt source code as shipped by Debian because
> these sources have been stripped down and some files/libraries that are needed
> for the qt for android "variant" are missing. That's the case for 'sqlite' as
> well as for 'freetype' and 'libpng' if I remember well. These libraries used
> by Qt for Android are not shipped in Android NDK, so we have to build with
> their source shipped in the qt sources. Hence the need of a distinct source
> file.
Is this a situation we can accommodate within the archive?
> You can follow a beginning of discussion on qt for android in [1]. Having a
> distinct source archive seemed to be the favored option.
>
> [1] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/2021-September/
> thread.html
debian/copyright is already 11k+ lines long. I doubt anyone would like
to review such a beast.
My point of view is that, in this form, this does not belongs into the archive.
Reply to: