Rex Dieter wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> Oh, *indirectly* calls qmake, that may be trickier. Which package? >> pcp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538187 > ... >> I don't want to copy this solution in the dozen or so packages which >> need this (and I probably would have missed QMAKE_STRIP). Surely it >> would make sense to provide a generic solution? > > If something is needed more broadly, I agree. I'll take a closer look at > pcp and see if I can come up with a better generic solution. This is the best I've come up with so far: * Qt packaging providing a qmake wrapper. first horriblish iteration: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt5/c/d9172949ad3ad54908de9ecfd41bf125f8f83447 * Adapt packages to use the wrapper. this can take the form of explicitly setting QMAKE (or equivalent), adjusting PATH to prefer the qt5 wrapper dir, or patching, or some combination of the above. In the specific case of pcp, it supports QMAKE, so it's a one liner, something like this appears to achieve what we want: diff --git a/pcp.spec b/pcp.spec index 72a7583..71d59a6 100644 --- a/pcp.spec +++ b/pcp.spec @@ -2089,6 +2089,7 @@ updated policy package. rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %build +export QMAKE=%{qmake_qt5_wrapper} %if !%{disable_python2} && 0%{?default_python} != 3 export PYTHON=python%{?default_python} %endif How's that sound? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
