From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 23:36:25 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] Making the Qt5 packaging compatible with
 per-package folder
In-Reply-To: <20181203172233.3dbc0867@windsurf.home>
References: <20181116171845.4bc2a936@windsurf>
 <20181203172233.3dbc0867@windsurf.home>
Message-ID: <20181205233625.74c4b28b@gmx.net>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hello Thomas,

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 17:22:33 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Peter, Ga?l,
> 
> I was wondering if you had any feedback/idea on the below
> questions/issues ?

Sorry, did not find enough spare time (yet) to take a deeper look
into the problem and/or do some experiments..., but still on my
ToDo list...

Regards,
Peter

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Thomas
> 
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:18:45 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Peter, Ga?l,
> > 
> > I don't know if you have followed the discussion, but I recently sent a
> > new iteration of the per-package folder series [1], which allows to
> > support top-level parallel build.
> > 
> > One issue is that the Qt5 packaging as done today in Buildroot is not
> > compatible with per-package folders.
> > 
> > If you remember well, the installation of each Qt5 module works like
> > this:
> > 
> >  - Staging installation
> > 
> >    Just "make install". No DESTDIR or INSTALL_ROOT is passed, because
> >    the installation path is hardcoded in qmake itself. "make install"
> >    will install stuff to both $(HOST_DIR) and $(STAGING_DIR).
> > 
> >  - Target installation
> > 
> >    We manually copy the shared libraries, QML files, fonts, and other
> >    stuff. This is already annoying to maintain today, because we
> >    sometimes forget to install something that is important, we need to
> >    handle the LTS/latest Qt5 version difference, etc. It would be a lot
> >    less maintenance if we could use "make install" also for the target
> >    installation.
> > 
> > Even if the current packaging is not ideal, it worked fine. But it
> > breaks badly with per-package folders. As explained above, the paths in
> > qmake are hardcoded. So when you do "make install" in qt5location for
> > example, it ends up being installed in the per-package folder of
> > qt5base (both HOST_DIR and STAGING_DIR), as it's the qt5base
> > HOST_DIR/STAGING_DIR that are hardcoded inside the qmake binary.
> > 
> > I tried to fix this issue, but for the moment, I haven't found a
> > solution. I first tried to use the -extprefix ./configure option, but
> > it didn't behave as we needed. Then I tried to do some manual
> > replacement in the Qt5 Makefiles after they have been generated (like
> > OpenEmbedded is doing), but they unfortunately get re-generated because
> > we tweak the .prl files from Qt5, and the Qt5 Makefiles regenerates the
> > Mkaefiles if they are older than the .prl files.
> > 
> > The current status of my experiment is visible at
> > https://git.bootlin.com/users/thomas-petazzoni/buildroot/commit/?h=ppsh-qt5&id=676d26ab1ca3d8f8ee5788dbc06f4e0703188bf1,
> > with a very long commit that explains the problem, and what was tried
> > so far. At this point, I am considering cheating on the date of
> > the .prl file to avoid the Makefiles from being re-generated, but this
> > is really a hack on top of what is already a hack.
> > 
> > Do you have some other ideas to solve this ? Can we fix qmake to do the
> > right thing ?
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for your help,
> > 
> > Thomas
> > 
> > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=75909  
> 
> 
>