Hi all, On 20-11-16 17:59, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2016-11-17 10:40 GMT+01:00 Abou Al Montacir <abou.almonta...@sfr.fr>: >> I've sent a mail but no answer, I'm going to ask again
Lazarus needs porting to Qt5 (symbol names changed at the minimum, probably more needed). I asked the question on progress on the qt lcl list¹. >> I am trying to figure out what I need to properly do on the package to >> upload it to experimental and try out if lazarus can be build with it. >> If so, I plan to also build winff and check if that than works properly. >> >> I think this could give a quite valid answer to our question, if this works >> then let's go. > > Sounds like a good plan. And it doesn't work. Work upstream and/or in Debian in the Lazarus package is required to get this going. Not sure if I am capable of doing that. >> @Matthias, should we reduce the amount of exported symbols even further, >> now we have a change with a soname bump? > > This would help a lot - in theory, we could simply hide all C++ > symbols and only export C ABI, since AFAIR that is the only API used > from FPC/Lazarus. This would make symbols file maintenance really > easy. It wasn't so bad once I figured out how to use pkgkde_symbolshelper (and some manual clean-up). The good thing with this new version is that it hardly has arch specific symbols left (one, if my memory serves). Paul ¹ Still waiting for approval, otherwise I would have shared the direct link to the message: http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/qt/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
