Message: previous - next
Month: June 2012

Re: [trinity-devel] FTBFS tqca-tls (x86_64) can't find TQt3 (i686 builds?)

From: "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:22:57 -0500
On 06/24/2012 05:00 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> On 06/24/2012 04:50 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>   Just for reference, I've tried this both with the current code and
>>> with the
>>> commit _reverted_ (and both with/without) setting --qtdir=/opt/tqt3 (to
>>> force a
>>> manual find). In all cases, some logic somewhere is still writing the
>>> /opt/tqt3/lib64 location.
>> Also, I last built tqca-tls without issue on this x86_64 box on 6/4/12. So
>> the
>> change has been relatively recent.
>> --
>> David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
> See my recent comment on Bug 1016. ;-)
> Tim

Next stupid question:

"How do I go about reverting specific commits in the build files?"

Is it best to do something in GIT to download the source without those commits?
Revert the commits with new patches? What says the master?

Currently (and since 3.5.10 Qt3) Arch uses the following:

  # fix /opt/qt/lib path
  [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ] && sed -i "s|/opt/qt/lib64|/opt/qt/lib|g"
  [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ] && sed -i "s|/opt/qt/lib64|/opt/qt/lib|g"
  [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ] && sed -i "s|/opt/qt/lib64|/opt/qt/lib|g"
  [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ] && sed -i "s|/opt/qt/lib64|/opt/qt/lib|g"
  [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ] && sed -i "s|/opt/qt/lib64|/opt/qt/lib|g"

Qt3/TQt3 has built on Arch like this for years. Would just adding more along
these lines be better than trying to manipulate GIT to get rid of the two commits?

Also, Arch isn't the only distro that uses lib instead of lib64 (lib is the
standard). The filesystem hierarchy standard (FHS) makes clear that lib64 is an
'Alternate Format' for distros to use while expecting 'lib' to remain the
standard. Arch is very particular about being FHS compliant with the standard as
opposed to the alternate. Can those two commits be improved to work with both
the FHS standard and alternate naming formats for lib? It just seem wrong to
target support toward the alternate without retaining support for the standard.

I'll work to get it building around the commits. If you have thoughts on whether
trying to do that with GIT or if new patches would be better, that would give me
a good direction to go it.

Thanks for helping find the culprit :)

David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.