trinity-devel@lists.pearsoncomputing.net

Message: previous - next
Month: June 2012

Re: [trinity-devel] TQt3 Name Change - Potential Problem - what about apps that Need moc?

From: "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:32:04 -0500
>>   It is not a TDE package.. Sorry, it is one of the
>> system dependencies for gpg/gpg-agent. The package name is 'pinentry'.
>> I'm sure it
>> is on your box as we speak. That is what brought up my concern. "Will
>> this
>> renaming break all packages that are NOT tde packages but that rely on
>> Qt?"
>>
>>   If I understand your earlier response, the qmake
>> paths/properties will handle outside packages that look for the Qt
>> executables and find
>> them under their new names. I don't know how that works, but I guess
>> there is a
>> pkgconfig type lookup or config file that would do it. Where I'm still
>> lost is if
>> there is both Qt4 and TQt3 installed and some package looks for the old
>> Qt
>> name -- how is it prevented from grabbing the Qt4 provided package by
>> mistake?
>>
>>   pinentry was just the example I stumbled across
>> today. In the (tde-world, non-tde-world), it is the non-tde-world apps
>> that concerned
>> me regarding the name change.  May not be an issue, but all the work you
>> are having to do in the 'tde-world' having to be duplicated for all
>> 'non-tde-world'
>> Qt packages was what scared me :)
>
> Ok, I follow. I'm slow. :-)
>
> I have pinentry installed. Of course, built against Qt4 rather than
> (T)Qt3.
>
> Perhaps that package needs to be rebuilt, explicitly declaring
> enable-pinentry-qt if the package was built against Qt4. When that option
> is used, you need to use the standard "qt-dir" options to ensure the
> configuration knows where to find TQt3:
>
> --with-qt-dir=${QTDIR} \
> --with-qt-includes=${QT_INCLUDE_DIR} \
> --with-qt-libraries=${QT_LIB_DIR} \
>
> Will the build still fail because moc was renamed to tqmoc? After a quick
> look at the pinentry sources, yes: the configure script explicitly looks
> for moc. I'm thinking a patch to change moc->tqmoc, much like we just
> patched all of the Trinity sources with the new names.
>
> Would a sym link moc->tqmoc succeed? Probably, but only when the TQt3 bin
> files are installed to a location different from the Qt4 bin files and the
> "qt-dir" configure options are used to explicitly find TQt3. Using a sym
> link would be a packaging issue.

One interesting item of note is that it should be theoretically possible
to install both Qt3 and TQt3 on the same system.  Programs written for Qt3
will NOT compile or run against TQt3, and (IMHO) should be ported to TQt3
(this can be done rather easily as only renaming, not rewriting, is
required) if they do not have a Qt4 equivalent.

Tim