Hey, > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:51:58PM +0100, Hefee wrote: > > I think there are also some candidates, that use qt6-base-dev-tools, as > > they are do not need all the other parts of qt6-base-dev to get > > installed, because they simply do not want to compile code, but just need > > information where to find a qt resources. > > One example would be I write a QML app run by python. To get the list of > > QML dependencies I use dh_qmldeps. and dh_qmldeps only needs to know the > > path where to find the qml modules by execute qtpaths. > > This ^^^^^^^ is exactly the case > where qt6-base-dev-tools is insufficient as qtpaths is the thing that is > architecture-dependent and whatever you depend on to get qtpaths must > not be M-A:foreign. To make matters worse, any package that uses > qtpaths6 cannot be M-A:foreign either as it inherits the property of > being architecture-dependent.
I'm not telling, that qt6-base-dev-tools in it current form should be usable it can be arch:same or something - I'm just telling, that we should not see qt6-base-dev-tools as implementation detail for fixing multi-arch, as there are other usecases. So any new solution should keep that in mind. > > create qtpaths6 (any:same) and qtpaths6-bin(any:foreign) like for qmake6. > > This much technically makes sense for cross building, but I am not > entirely convinced about using many small packages, because the Qt stack > has a web of dependencies, so in most practical situations I end up > with a pile of stuff. Whilst saving space is nice, I don't see the use > case for development tools. I understand your point. > > create dev-tools-config(arch:same) move everything from qmake6 except > > usr/bin/ > This makes sense in principle as qtpaths6 will need to depend on > dev-tools-config (<- this should probably carry "qt" somehwere in the > name). ACK the name should have a qt inside ;) > > rename qt6-base-dev-tools to qt6-base-dev-bin + provides and add qtpaths6. > > Can you elaborate what you mean here precisely? This is lacking slightly > too many details for me to fill in the gaps. > > When I suggested renaming qt6-base-dev-tools to qt6-base-dev-bin, the > point of the exercise was to actively break all users of > qt6-base-dev-tools such that each of them would require action > transitioning its dependency to whatever was really meant there. I cannot recall what I initially had in mind with this. But with our comments it is even better to do this: * rename to qt6-base-dev-bin, so we can make qt6-base-dev-tools multi- arch:same * ship the arch depended tools like qtpaths6 within qt6-base-dev-tools , that depends on qt6-base-dev-bin and qt6-base-dev-config That should make it easy for use to move more tools to multi-arch:same if we need to. Regards, hefee
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
