Hi Danny, thanks again for your help.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:36:49PM +0100, Danny Edel wrote: > Control: block 784451 by 832420 > > that is fine with me. I'll keep the bugs in CC too. :-) > > We somehow should target to Qt5 anyway (see #784451) better sooner than > > later. > > > > For now, I have backported the fixes to the released, but Qt4-based > 1.4.3~beta1 version, to resolve the current FTBFS with a targeted fix. > The changes are uploaded to the debian-med/ball repository on alioth, > pending your review and upload. Build is just running ... I'll come back later in case of any issues I feel unable to deal with myself. > In that process, I tried building various stages of upstream master, and > bae96ab4 'Merge branch issue_596' might be a candidate for a snapshot > (entire testsuite passes). However, there is the problem that > QtWebEngine is not yet included in Debian, so I could only build recent > master if I explicitly disabled support with -DUSE_QTWEBENGINE=OFF. I > am not sure if this would be a good thing for users. I admit that I have no idea whether this is a real constraint. I added Steffen in CC who might raise his opinion. > I added a blocking relationship to the ITP of QtWebEngine, I hope I > didn't mix up the numbers. The changelog contains a Closes: clause on > both FTBFS issues, even though I could only test amd64. Feel free to > remove those before uploading if that's an issue. I will also test on amd64. If it turns out that there might be some issues on other architectures we possibly need to excluded these. Thanks a lot Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de