From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:25:19 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/4] qt5: expose a QT5_QMAKE variable for other Qt5 packages In-Reply-To: <87mw8943vw.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1414880111-19166-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1414880111-19166-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <87mw8943vw.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20141103222519.7c8797e9@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter Korsgaard, On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:46:43 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > diff --git a/package/qt5/qt5.mk b/package/qt5/qt5.mk > > index e9c59db..2a3e274 100644 > > --- a/package/qt5/qt5.mk > > +++ b/package/qt5/qt5.mk > > @@ -17,3 +17,6 @@ define QT5_LA_PRL_FILES_FIXUP > > $(SED) "s%-L/usr/lib%%" $$i; \ > > done > > endef > > + > > +# Variable for other Qt applications to use > > +QT5_QMAKE = $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/qmake -spec devices/linux-buildroot-g++ > > This (and elsewhere) shows a bit of a mixup between BR2_PACKAGE_QT5 and > qt5base - But ok, having BR2_PACKAGE_QT5 enabled without qt5base isn't > really sensible (but is allowed by kconfig). I hesitated between qt5.mk or qt5base.mk. I decided to go with qt5.mk, with the following reasoning: * I wanted to name the variable QT5_QMAKE and not QT5BASE_QMAKE, to mimic what exists for qt4 (variable is named QT_QMAKE). * Since the variable was going to be named QT5_QMAKE, I found it would be odd to have it in qt5base.mk where all variables are QT5BASE_. So I went with qt5.mk instead. > Should we just use BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE everywhere you check for BR2_PACKAGE_QT5? Where exactly? Or shouldn't we have qt5base selected as soon as qt5 is enabled? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com