Qt packaging

[Jan Rękorajski]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2022, Neal Gompa wrote:

> 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.

Well, we don't have resources to play with backporting changes.
Besides I saw have ex. Fedora packages qt and it is IMO a joke. They don't
build docs, they don't build internal deps, so yeah, it's easy, but it's
half of the functionality.

I'd rather have a package without the backports, but with all bells and
whistles, that is easy to build, rather than either build pain on half
baked.

-- 
Jan Rękorajski                    | PLD/Linux
SysAdm | baggins<at>pld-linux.org | http://www.pld-linux.org/