Re: Building auxiliary tools in qmake2-native

[Michael Krelin <hacker@klever.net>]

I'm not a qt expert and even less qtopia expert, but I happened to do a 
bit of work on qt in OE. That was both an excuse for my ignorance and 
the explanation of why the hell I find it appropriate to chime in all.

I do not know what 'lrelease' is (ignorant, remember?), so I'd also ask 
if you really sure that, for instance, uicmoc is not a better place for 
the tool than qmake?

The other thing is that when building uicmoc with qt3support module OE 
has to build almost the whole qt, anyway. Would it not be better if we 
just have qt-native package with all the tools installed? That would 
reduce the amount of merciless and senseless patching and I believe 
would reduce the slice of disk-space/cpu-time continuum eaten up by most 
of the builds.

Does anyone happen to have an opinion?

Love,
H


> I've a Qtopia application whose build needs to use some of the i18n
> tools available from the Qt source distribution. I suppose that
> qmake2-native would be the likely package to supply those, in the
> current state it doesn't. Presumably, this is because Trolltech's
> configure script forces these to be disabled on a cross-compilation.
> 
> My naive attempt to do this by patching the configure script not to
> forcibly remove the 'tools' from cross-builds ended badly; several
> headers presumably generated by native tools were missing. Does the
> maintainer of the Qt tools and build have an opinion on whether
> there's a better way to get some of the auxiliary tools built?
> 
> The specific one I'm seeking is 'lrelease'.
> 
> --Matt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel