On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:34:55 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Dmitrijs Ledkovs <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 4 September 2013 12:09, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > > >wrote: > >> Dmitrijs Ledkovs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Changes like this should really be coordinated in Debian so we don't > > > >accumulate long term differences that can't easily be resolved. > > > > > >Yeah, and as far as I know Timo is doing excellent work at keeping > >packaging in sync as much as possible. > >But e.g. w.r.t. multiarch & cross-compilation overall at the moment > >Debian is still far behind Ubuntu, despite myself and many others > >pushing many mutli-arch changes back to debian. > > He is. For changes that can't be pushed to Debian now (I guess such as > this), there should still be up front coordination on the approach so > Ubuntu doesn't head off in one direction and discover later that it's > unacceptable in Debian and then Ubuntu is stuck with a permanent diff or a > lot of rework. > > If such coordination has been done, I haven't seen it on what I would > imagine to be the relevant lists. > >> Why do you need to cross compile QML anyway? It's not like you need > > > >it for bootstrapping. > > > > > >This is not to cross compile QML itself. This is for 3rd party > >developers to cross-compile their compiled qml extensions against > >ubuntu's armhf qt to be included as part of their applications for > >Ubuntu Touch. > >Or e.g. to cross-compile ubuntu-touch-settings or other packages we > >have in the archive that have qml extensions. > >Going via this route though (make qmake support cross-compilation with > >a debian specific toolchain file), will eventually make possible to > >cross-compile qt itself and also be upstream able patches for qmake. > > It sounds at least vaguely reasonable. My main concern is that the > coordination is done.
OK, so I checked. No, no coordination had been done and the response I got was that this should be accommodated upstream rather than in the packaging. I think that's reasonable. Before this is done in Ubuntu, there should be some discussion with upstream about a long term plan for supporting this use case. I know an upstream fix won't be available for saucy and likely not even for "T", but the path to an upstream resolution should be started before we start on a divergence like this. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
