[Tinkerphones] [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2 again...
jonas at jones.dk
Thu Oct 26 11:11:28 CEST 2017
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2017-10-26 07:05:10)
>> Am 25.10.2017 um 19:32 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk>:
>> Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2017-10-25 17:44:50)
>>> Back to the original problem: I had not expected that there is a
>>> need for a configure-make-install. Since we are fully Debian.
>> How do you mean configure-build-install isn't needed? QtMoko is
>> compiled code, so will need to be compiled.
> But you shouldn't have to to type configure & make to start the
> dpkg-buildpackage wrapped by a makefile.
> The dpkg-buildpackage of course must do a configure & make for the
> source tree, but hide that from the user.
> IMHO, something is done here upside down.
> My initial mistake was to assume that I can directly call
> dpkg-buildpackage after unpacking the source tree. It turned out that
> this does not work. At least not without modifications.
If you expect source to be a Debian source package¹ then I agree it must
be be buildable by a) simply unpacking it (dpkg-source -x *.dsc), b) cd
into root of unpacked source tree, and c) build it (dpkg-buildpackage).
But a large project involving embedded (likely multiple interlinked)
libraries cannot sensibly² be organized as a single(!) Debian source
package - each library should be a separate source package, built and
tested and packaged and versioned on its own.
I thought that your labeling it "upside down" meant that you think it
should be adjusted to be able to compile with a single dpkg-buildpackage
call. I disagree with that: I believe that the sensible way to turn
such a set of essentially multiple sources is to unentangle those into
multiple Debian source packages and build each of those separately.
If untentangling into multiple Debian source packages was also what you
talk about I do believe that untentangling into multiple Debian source
packages is what Joshua intend to (eventually, when better understood)
reach at. If that is also what you are talking about above, then I
simply suggest to not label it as "upside down" which can be
misunderstood as the _build_ routines_ need fixing when really it is
more fundamentally the _source organization_ which need fixing (too).
A more descriptive labeling would in my opinion be "a big mess".
¹ Source format "1.0" is upstream tarball + Debian diff + dsc file, and
source format "3.0 (quilt)" is upstream tarball + Debian tarball + dsc
² Indeed, Chromium is *not* a sensibly organized source package!
>>> It should even be possible to use apt-source -b - if we have proper
>>> source packages. So it looks as if the build architecture of QtMoko
>>> is upside down...
>>> Maybe it is historical since this is still Squeeze and Wheezy code
>>> and multiarch wasn't complete back then. On Jessie or Stretch I
>>> think it could be much simpler if the debian/rules are updated.
>> I believe the reason QtMoko build routines fit badly with Debian
>> style of packaging is that it does not use existing shared Qt
>> libraries but instead embeds its own fork of Qt optimized for
>> embedded devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Extended
> It could be a renowned Debian citizen if it would not embed it but
> just package and provide the special QtE libraries and then just use
> the -dev version for dpkg-building the launcher, dialer, etc. This is
> what Josua is working on:
I guess that this:
"if it would not embed it"
expands to this:
"if QtMoko project would not embed QtE libraries"
and then we agree - except for the word "just": Joshua reports that
there are trouble unentangling them because their interdependency seems
to form a circular graph.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
More information about the Community