Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

[Holger Freyther]

Hi Dmitry,

your latest change is wrong. You apply a patch (that is not mentioned in the
commit message) that does not exist in the tree. Your patch to
qt4-tools-sdk.inc is also wrong. qt4-tools-sdk.inc is only used by
qt4-tools-sdk_4.7.0.bb which is using -embedded and -no-freetype... so adding
the patch and the extra includes is not correct (and you probably should have
bumped INC_PR in that file).

For Qt 4.6.3 I would propose building the tools with --no-freetype as we have
no interest in GUI anyway.

I hope you can fix that soon.

	thanks.

Re: Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Holger Freyther <holger+oe@freyther.de> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> your latest change is wrong. You apply a patch (that is not mentioned in the
> commit message) that does not exist in the tree. Your patch to
> qt4-tools-sdk.inc is also wrong. qt4-tools-sdk.inc is only used by
> qt4-tools-sdk_4.7.0.bb which is using -embedded and -no-freetype... so adding
> the patch and the extra includes is not correct (and you probably should have
> bumped INC_PR in that file).

Commited fixes for this.

> For Qt 4.6.3 I would propose building the tools with --no-freetype as we have
> no interest in GUI anyway.

I'll look into that.

> I hope you can fix that soon.
>
>        thanks.
>



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

[Holger Freyther]

On 10/05/2010 11:39 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:

> 
> Commited fixes for this.

thanks. Could you please describe the error you were seeing for your LFLAGS patch?

Re: Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Holger Freyther <holger+oe@freyther.de> wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 11:39 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>
>>
>> Commited fixes for this.
>
> thanks. Could you please describe the error you were seeing for your LFLAGS patch?
>

Prehistory: I'm building OE on the Debian lenny box with nearly no
development packages
installed (no X11 headers, etc.). qt4 configure script was trying to
build xlib test.
Compilation went OK (as there are X11 headers in the chroot). However
during linkage,
came a problem: xlib.o required libX11 which in turn required
libxcb.so (with some symbols
that were not available in the version in /usr/lib on my lenny) and
libpthread-stubs.so.
As configuration test did not pass rpath-link to gcc, linker failed to
resolve libxcb.so from
OE sysroot and thus failed link stage with undefined symbols.

I ain't sure that this description is very clear, but I hope this
helps. At least I know for sure
how to reproduce the problem.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: Latest qt4-sdk-tools* patch is wrong

[Holger Freyther]

On 10/06/2010 04:13 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:

> 
> Prehistory: I'm building OE on the Debian lenny box with nearly no
> development packages
> installed (no X11 headers, etc.). qt4 configure script was trying to
> build xlib test.
> Compilation went OK (as there are X11 headers in the chroot). However
> during linkage,
> came a problem: xlib.o required libX11 which in turn required
> libxcb.so (with some symbols
> that were not available in the version in /usr/lib on my lenny) and
> libpthread-stubs.so.
> As configuration test did not pass rpath-link to gcc, linker failed to
> resolve libxcb.so from
> OE sysroot and thus failed link stage with undefined symbols.

> 
> I ain't sure that this description is very clear, but I hope this
> helps. At least I know for sure
> how to reproduce the problem.

Hi Dmitry,

I think you have figured out the root cause of why we were adding other libs
to the link line as well. In general this extra dependency is fixed when using
the -embedded option (or as someone pointed out... might be -no-x11 for stuff
< 4.7.). It would be good if your patch would contain this information itself.

thanks a lot

	z


PS: Your message does not seem to make it to the list, so I am not removing
parts of your email.