Qt packaging

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 2:32 AM Jan Rękorajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022, Jan Palus wrote:
>
> > On 22.07.2022 11:03, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > > Can someone explain why are we using split sources/packages for Qt?
> > >
> > > I want to add Qt6 and building from the monolythic source is soooo much
> > > easier. No need for bootstrap, no intertwined build dependencies, just
> > > configure -> build -> build docs -> install.
> > >
> > > And unless there is a _very_ good reason to use split sources I'm just going
> > > to add a single qt6 package that builds everything (we can still subpackage
> > > bineries as we want them).
> >
> > As long as each component is bcondized and there are no "to the exact
> > release" dependencies then I guess it's fine. Doing qtwebengine (and all
> > the other components) rebuild each time qtbase needs a small packaging
> > adjustment would be tough on arm, though I'd understand if nobody cared
> > about my use case.
>
> FYI build time on builders is 1.5 hour without qtwebengine and 7 hours
> with qtwebengine.
>
> I don't know how it looks on arm, but IMHO no-webengine bcond should be enough?
>

The reason most distros don't use the monolithic source is that it's a
pain to apply patches to it. Qt doesn't actually get developed that
way, and backporting fixes is more of a pain if you use the monolithic
build.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!