> On Nov. 18, 2014, 8:19 a.m., Ivan Romanov wrote: > > It won't be fixed. Change major version is really bad idea. > > Close review request and read INSTALL. > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > I don't understand your review. > > Why is it a bad idea? What do you want me to see in INSTALL? > > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > Changing major version is a very good idea, qca compiled with Qt4 and qca > compiled with Qt5 are totally incompatible with eachother, so they should not > have the same major version. > > Why do you say they should have the same major version number? > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > > Why is it a bad idea? What do you want me to see in INSTALL? > > QCA_SUFFIX > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > > Changing major version is a very good idea > > Ok, how to have both qca-devel and qca-qt5-devel subpackages in one > system? Both packages in this case will have libqca.so but first => > libqca.so.2 and second => libqca.so.3 . Do you can resolve this issue? Why > you can't use QCA_SUFFIX? I give you all tools to install qca and qca-qt5 in > parallel. Just use them. And don't argue with me. > > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > And don't argue with me. > > Really? This is your way of treating contributors? > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > This question allready was discussed before. Requester can't answer why > he can't just use QCA_SUFFIX. And why I must use hard-coded another library. > But he was sure that I must do as he said. I will try to find that review > request. > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Is there any find tool in git.reviewboard.kde.org > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119939/ > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > You can explain me why you can't use QCA_SUFFIX or maybe somebody > prohibits you to use it? > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Or maybe there is standard which force me to change major version? > > Martin Klapetek wrote: > Speaking of not answering questions or explaining...the RR you linked > have 5 people from different major distributions asking questions which you > have left unanswered and also suggesting you *should* do that and you did not > /explain/ why you would not accept it. > > I don't know what standard you keep looking for...those comments are from > packagers. And packagers are the people that deal with these things every > single day; they get the stuff you create to users. They know the best. > There's nothing to argue. If anyone should not argue, it's you with them, > really. > > As for this RR, note Dan's reply in the other -- "I'd like to point out > that soname bump is usually not enough. It will prevent conflict of the base > package, but it will lead to conflicts with -devel packages, which install > the library without soname." > > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > This question allready was discussed before. Requester can't answer why > he can't just use QCA_SUFFIX. And why I must use hard-coded another library. > But he was sure that I must do as he said. I will try to find that review > request. > > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119939/ > > > Well I wasn't aware of that review request, but even if i was, what's the > reason to be impolite and say "don't argue with me"? Anyway, i'm not > interested in discussing with impolite people. Enjoy! > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > In this case **NO** any standarts which I should/must follow. Case when > from the same sources can be compiled some not ABI compatibles libraries is > specific. No standart way to handle this. So IMO library name shouldn't be > depended from any other libraries against which it compiled. So I use by > default qca name. But I know what sometimes distros provides some versions of > one library. For this case I did QCA_SUFFIX it allows to have various version > on single library installed in parallel. I think it will be enough. > > Andrey Bondrov wrote: > QCA_SUFFIX is a good way to have both Qt4 and Qt5 qca libraries > installed, including both development packages. Here is how I build Qt5 > version of qca: > https://abf.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva/qca2-qt5/blob/master/qca2-qt5.spec > > Andrey Bondrov wrote: > Could be nice to have qt5 as the default (=recommended) QCA_SUFFIX for > Qt5 build. Otherwise we may end with some blobs built for Ubuntu (or another > distro) missing required qca2 library only because of different > soname/filename. > > Martin Klapetek wrote: > --> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119939/ - that's what that RR is > about. > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Andrey, use stable release > http://delta.affinix.com/download/qca/2.0/qca-2.1.0.tar.gz > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Andrey, QCA_INSTALL_IN_QT_PREFIX is not cache variable so you can't set > this in command line. qca-gnupg requires gnupg package (prefer 1.4 version) I > think should be added `Requires: gnupg`. Also there are documentation. I > think it will be good to give these to developers `make doc && cp -r > apidocs/html /some/path` > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Andrey, I will add suitable warning to cmake for users who build on Linux > for Qt5 without QCA_SUFFIX. Please provide me text for this warning. > > Andrey Bondrov wrote: > Thanx for your advices, I updated package to 2.1.0 stable and adjusted > spec file. As for the warning, I guess this text is OK: "You don't have > QCA_SUFFIX set. Please note that the recommended way of building Qt5 version > of qca for Linux distributions is to set QCA_SUFFIX to qt5 > (-DQCA_SUFFIX=qt5)." > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Andrey, you build docs but didn't to copy to %{buildroot}. Also use > QCA_MAN_INSTALL_DIR to set properly path for manpages. > > Andrey Bondrov wrote: > Ivan, I use "%doc build/apidocs" inside devel package's %files instead of > copying build/apidocs to buildroot. And thanx for the hint with > QCA_MAN_INSTALL_DIR :-) > > Hrvoje Senjan wrote: > >QCA_SUFFIX is a good way to have both Qt4 and Qt5 qca libraries > installed, including both development packages. > > Hm, but both development packages cannot be installed at the same time. > The CMake files are installed into the same dir name for both Qt4 and Qt5 > builds, regardless of the QCA_SUFFIX > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Renaming config files is not correct. I can't just use suffix for them. > find_package can handle only with single name. I don't knot how to handle > with this. Maybe there is a way to distinct Qt version in qca config files. > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > Why is renaming the package/config file incorrect? Numerous packagers > suggest you adopt an approach used by pretty much every major library > supporting both Qt4 and Qt5, and you consistently refuse to even entertain > it. We're forced to recommend to our users to avoid software using QCA > because it's just not possible to support properly. > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > Well, the reason why you don't want to tie the Config file name to the > suffix is simple. If you did that, you'd make developers to tie their source > code (i.e. find_package(QCA-qt5)) to whatever the distribution decided to > call the QCA_SUFFIX. FWIW, I don't think it should be up to the packager to > define what it's called, the only reason we need the suffix is because we > need co-installability of the library between Qt4 and Qt5. > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > That's correct, I meant renaming in general (ie. to a fixed string, > upstream) > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > > Why is renaming the package/config file incorrect? > > My failure. I read cmake documentation again. So `find_package` has > `NAMES` option what can contains alternative possible config names. So I can > freely use `QCA_SUFFIX` for cmake config files too. > > Ivan Romanov wrote: > Commits > [cmake: warn user when QCA_SUFFIX is not > set](http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=qca.git&a=commitdiff&h=2c58be171e8478f03d8a724640f40e36826c6893&hp=25860ff244205b7cc61fc5c8ed06bcbe9f12957f) > [cmake: apply QCA_SUFFIX for cmake config module > names](http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=qca.git&a=commitdiff&h=66447d0454591f4c1deb5f4c988c6027194b1335)
Ivan, I appreciate the two commits you made to simplify things, however it seems that's not enough. For example say I want to create an application (or build an existing one) that uses qca built for qt5. If I add find_package(QCA-qt5) it will work only on distributions who built qca with -DQCA_SUFFIX=-qt5 but not another distro that built with -DQCA_SUFFIX=5 or another that used -DQCA_SUFFIX=qt5. This is very unfortunate. Many many packagers have commented on this review and the other review that a solution within qca sources itself is ideal and wanted. You have repeatedly ignored questions of why you are against such a change besides asking for some standard that will never exist. If you would like to help users of qca use qca you should propose a solution or accept one of these solutions that has already been presented to you. I fear if you do neither of these a fork of qca may happen at some point so we can get past this issue and move on. - Jeremy ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121168/#review70590 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 18, 2014, 7:53 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121168/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 18, 2014, 7:53 a.m.) > > > Review request for Kubuntu and Ivan Romanov. > > > Repository: qca > > > Description > ------- > > Qt4 and Qt5 versions can't have the same so-name. An application compiled > against Qt4 won't work if suddenly it finds a Qt5 dependency. > > > Diffs > ----- > > CMakeLists.txt 7adacf1 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121168/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Stills builds, things didn't seem to break. > > > Thanks, > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez > >
-- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
