Pulseview with modular qt

OpenSubmitted by Theodoros Foradis.
Details
3 participants
  • Marius Bakke
  • Ricardo Wurmus
  • Theodoros Foradis
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
T
T
Theodoros Foradis wrote on 29 Sep 2017 13:27
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)(name . Marius Bakke)(address . mbakke@fastmail.com)
87r2uphhir.fsf@foradis.org
Hello,

commit b1e4c0fa514d94df9735685a037693e5c6efa5b2 changed the pulseview
package to build with modular qt.

Now, some icons do not appear at all in the gui. I had tried building
with modular qt before submitting the qt package, and this is why I
opted for "qt" as an input.

The two inputs from modular qt, namely qtbase and qtsvg, seem to be the
correct ones, seeing that other distibutions (e.g. Parabola/Arch) use
the same dependencies.

My guess (not being familiar with qt), is that somehow, having the two
inputs in different prefixes, causes the problem with the package's
build system. I gave a look at the cmake files, but couldn't locate the
issue/fix.

Any ideas?
--
Theodoros Foradis
R
R
Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 29 Sep 2017 18:31
(name . Theodoros Foradis)(address . theodoros@foradis.org)(address . 28644@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wp4h4gbz.fsf@elephly.net
Theodoros Foradis <theodoros@foradis.org> writes:

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> My guess (not being familiar with qt), is that somehow, having the two
> inputs in different prefixes, causes the problem with the package's
> build system. I gave a look at the cmake files, but couldn't locate the
> issue/fix.

You could try to validate your hypothesis by using a union package such
as it was done for python-pyqt+qscintilla. That package would have only
one prefix. If that really does make a difference we might be able to
investigate the issue further.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
T
T
Theodoros Foradis wrote on 30 Sep 2017 15:23
(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . rekado@elephly.net)
87poa8gw0x.fsf@foradis.org
Ricardo Wurmus writes:

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> Theodoros Foradis <theodoros@foradis.org> writes:
>
>> My guess (not being familiar with qt), is that somehow, having the two
>> inputs in different prefixes, causes the problem with the package's
>> build system. I gave a look at the cmake files, but couldn't locate the
>> issue/fix.
>
> You could try to validate your hypothesis by using a union package such
> as it was done for python-pyqt+qscintilla. That package would have only
> one prefix. If that really does make a difference we might be able to
> investigate the issue further.

Thanks for the union package recommendation. I tried that, but
unfortunately it does not fix the icon issue.

I see that there is a wip-qt-paths branch in our git repo. I don't
really know its purpose, maybe it's worth to try rebasing it on
master and build pulseview with that?

Any other ideas?

--
Theodoros Foradis
M
M
Marius Bakke wrote on 4 Oct 2017 00:00
(address . 28644@debbugs.gnu.org)
871smjevtj.fsf@fastmail.com
Theodoros Foradis <theodoros@foradis.org> writes:

Toggle quote (21 lines)
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Theodoros Foradis <theodoros@foradis.org> writes:
>>
>>> My guess (not being familiar with qt), is that somehow, having the two
>>> inputs in different prefixes, causes the problem with the package's
>>> build system. I gave a look at the cmake files, but couldn't locate the
>>> issue/fix.
>>
>> You could try to validate your hypothesis by using a union package such
>> as it was done for python-pyqt+qscintilla. That package would have only
>> one prefix. If that really does make a difference we might be able to
>> investigate the issue further.
>
> Thanks for the union package recommendation. I tried that, but
> unfortunately it does not fix the icon issue.
>
> I see that there is a wip-qt-paths branch in our git repo. I don't
> really know its purpose, maybe it's worth to try rebasing it on
> master and build pulseview with that?

Hello, and sorry for breaking this package! I don't know what the
wip-qt-paths branch is for, but it looks like a good place to fix the
problem, and I'm sure Hartmut and 宋文武 would appreciate more testers.

Can you try rebasing it and see if it makes a difference? I will try to
investigate more towards the weekend as I really want to get rid of the
monolithic Qt :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlnUCGgACgkQoqBt8qM6
VPpcNQgAvuX0RKIiw7mAjpRxBGb2NtfmAF3OIdaqAkZeQ5zD0Ppfi4Dhie0F52go
FZ1a4VUEdWDbxyLmfqf7LvapW0a+AgFxBfw70mN40hn+maKRztGJm+g9W6IVFI3p
9khwDO00HYpeF2A3W5EbzOGpQkGn9g5JeOM/jDsc7hkKlf5UBlif0MEKe7Q035k2
idg9zaTazZWAw+COo7G4VbEZDBjZr5BLYK4LyOq479fb4J1wT+Co+daSJkR4qLbD
m7w9IgaQMpVLh1j81fZNKrRBg1SRW18WAtOSuxxFA2epKnhMAjib26f0FBK38NE+
W5lsFh3JIrW2PMJZABnMeuXrs54qlQ==
=BQ8x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

?