On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:46:55 +0100 Fab Stz <fabstz...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > Le mercredi 15 décembre 2021, 16:22:41 CET Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > Having a source package named "qt6" build Android-specific packages sounds > > wrong to me. > > I understand. I gave it that name to be at least distinct from the other qt6 > packages. This can be changed to anything more suitable like qt6-android or > whatever.
Yes please. > > Is this intended to contain the normal Qt source code and so > > be a duplicate of normal Qt packages? > > It can't be duplicate to DFSG Qt source code as shipped by Debian because > these sources have been stripped down and some files/libraries that are needed > for the qt for android "variant" are missing. That's the case for 'sqlite' as > well as for 'freetype' and 'libpng' if I remember well. These libraries used > by Qt for Android are not shipped in Android NDK, so we have to build with > their source shipped in the qt sources. Hence the need of a distinct source > file. Is this a situation we can accommodate within the archive? > You can follow a beginning of discussion on qt for android in [1]. Having a > distinct source archive seemed to be the favored option. > > [1] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/2021-September/ > thread.html debian/copyright is already 11k+ lines long. I doubt anyone would like to review such a beast. My point of view is that, in this form, this does not belongs into the archive.
