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 - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913