Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2017-10-26 07:05:10) >> Am 25.10.2017 um 19:32 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@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. > > Indeed. > > 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 file. 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: > > http://git.goldelico.com/?p=qtmoko2-qte.git;a=summary 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 -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@tinkerphones.org http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/community http://www.tinkerphones.org
