Re: Bug#904688: qttools-opensource-src: FTBFS: please drop the libclang-dev B-D on some architectures
On 07/27/2018 02:48 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> It will also mean that we Qt maintainers will start receiving valid bugs.
> Considering the ratio of work and manpower we have now it's not something we
> would like to deal with. Now if you can somehow chime in here, well, we can
> make an arrangement of some type I guess.
I'm not sure what problem you are seeing here but I don't think that a missing
documentation generation tool will have any negative impact on binary-only
builds.
qttools itself is only using qdoc in its binary-arch-indep target why should
that be any different for any of the other Qt packages?
> Maybe by opening a bug due to qdoc removal on some archs might help, you could
> subscribe there if needed.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. If qdoc is not there in the first
place, how can it be removed?
>> I think that this is similar to the case discussed in #897667, not being
>> able to build qt4-x11 makes big portions of the archive unbuildable,
>> many thousands of packages. Not being able to build
>> qttools-opensource-src will have a similar effect, I think.
>
> Yes, I'm afraid so. But first we would need patches. I doubt John's patch will
> work as I think Dmitry built the package first, FTBFS and then he added the
> llvm dependency. And if qdoc is not being built the .install files need also
> adjustment.
The debian/rules file is already written such that it will not build any
documentation when DEB_HOST_ARCH != DEB_BUILD_ARCH, so unless Dmitry put
these statements there without any testing, I'm sure you can build qttools
without qdoc.
> But again, I'll be happy to be shown otherwise.
Working on it. Waiting for the build dependencies to get built.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: