-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

I am developing a program and have begun testing it on other
distributions, however I am having some trouble getting it to compile on
Fedora.

The configure script checks for the program 'moc' and fails if it
doesn't find it. I have installed the qt-devel package, but for some
reason it installs moc as moc-qt4, no symlink or anything. Can anyone
explain to me why this is, and possibly suggest a suitable workaround?

Cheers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhji64ACgkQ6iqRtkAADZjcJwCdE9SX7+rtJ6 yBDYyMZddZ3pra
KVMAoPatrn0RO+ohfDAFBgMBMDLR1zYA
=ZF06
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chris Spencer wrote:


I am developing a program and have begun testing it on other
distributions, however I am having some trouble getting it to compile on
Fedora.

The configure script checks for the program 'moc' and fails if it
doesn't find it. I have installed the qt-devel package, but for some
reason it installs moc as moc-qt4, no symlink or anything. Can anyone
explain to me why this is, and possibly suggest a suitable workaround?


qt3 moc or qt4 moc? (I'll assume the latter).

If building rpms:
Put in specfile:
export PATH=%{_qt4_bindir}:$PATH

and/or (this sometimes helps):
export MOC=%{_qt4_bindir}/moc

See /etc/rpm/macros.qt4 for other useful goodies.

-- Rex

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Rex,

Yes, I am building for Qt4. Currently I am not in the packaging stage, I
am simply installing various distributions on VMware and running the
standard ./configure; make; make install to make sure everything works.
Inevitably there will be slight differences between distros that will
cause problems.

Once I have got these issues ironed out I will start packaging it up in
rpms, debs, whatever.

I think the easiest thing to do would probably be to just add another
check for 'moc-qt4' and fail if it doesn't find either. I guess what I'm
really asking is why it was done like this? Developers expect it to be
under the name 'moc', renaming it without even a symlink is just going
to create problems.

Rex Dieter wrote:
| Chris Spencer wrote:
|
|> I am developing a program and have begun testing it on other
|> distributions, however I am having some trouble getting it to compile on
|> Fedora.
|>
|> The configure script checks for the program 'moc' and fails if it
|> doesn't find it. I have installed the qt-devel package, but for some
|> reason it installs moc as moc-qt4, no symlink or anything. Can anyone
|> explain to me why this is, and possibly suggest a suitable workaround?
|
| qt3 moc or qt4 moc? (I'll assume the latter).
|
| If building rpms:
| Put in specfile:
| export PATH=%{_qt4_bindir}:$PATH
|
| and/or (this sometimes helps):
| export MOC=%{_qt4_bindir}/moc
|
| See /etc/rpm/macros.qt4 for other useful goodies.
|
| -- Rex
|
| --
| Fedora-packaging mailing list
| Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
| https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhjn3wACgkQ6iqRtkAADZjkiACeOiKm0agijm b0B54oCPZtKYpL
SpkAoMypC68GROH9Fuqcon2r6MkIW6Bk
=nBaL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chris Spencer wrote:


> I think the easiest thing to do would probably be to just add another
> check for 'moc-qt4' and fail if it doesn't find either. I guess what I'm
> really asking is why it was done like this? Developers expect it to be
> under the name 'moc', renaming it without even a symlink is just going
> to create problems.

Both qt3 and qt4 provide "moc" (there are other dups, but let's still with
this example). So, a convention that most distros use is to ship moc-qt3
and moc-qt4 (and possibly a 'moc' pointing to one of those).

-- Rex

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes that makes sense, I suppose what I will do then is look for
'moc-qt4' first, then just 'moc'. However, it would probably be
advantageous for Fedora to include a symlink between moc and moc-qt4,
perhaps with some mechanism to switch between that and moc-qt3.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

Chris.

Rex Dieter wrote:
| Chris Spencer wrote:
|
|
|> I think the easiest thing to do would probably be to just add another
|> check for 'moc-qt4' and fail if it doesn't find either. I guess what I'm
|> really asking is why it was done like this? Developers expect it to be
|> under the name 'moc', renaming it without even a symlink is just going
|> to create problems.
|
| Both qt3 and qt4 provide "moc" (there are other dups, but let's still with
| this example). So, a convention that most distros use is to ship moc-qt3
| and moc-qt4 (and possibly a 'moc' pointing to one of those).
|
| -- Rex
|
| --
| Fedora-packaging mailing list
| Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
| https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhjo9IACgkQ6iqRtkAADZjFKgCgiw2mX+gGoj lO9K2uvvI2S9dR
cDsAn17XlpIKfYl6jzdNMIEL4iZcITIV
=Oh1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chris Spencer wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes that makes sense, I suppose what I will do then is look for
'moc-qt4' first, then just 'moc'. However, it would probably be
advantageous for Fedora to include a symlink between moc and moc-qt4,
perhaps with some mechanism to switch between that and moc-qt3.


For F-10 (and previous fedora's when qt-4.4/kde-4.1 is released), the
default moc will be qt4's instead of qt(3)'s.


-- Rex

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chris Spencer <spencercw@googlemail.com> writes:

> The configure script checks for the program 'moc' and fails if it
> doesn't find it. I have installed the qt-devel package, but for some
> reason it installs moc as moc-qt4, no symlink or anything. Can anyone
> explain to me why this is, and possibly suggest a suitable workaround?

Use

| PKG_CHECK_MODULES(QT, Qt)
| QT4_BINDIR=`$PKG_CONFIG Qt --variable bindir`
| AC_CHECK_TOOLS(MOC, [moc],, [$QT4_BINDIR:$PATH])

This gives most flexibility by using proper defaults while allowing
users to override detected tool by setting $MOC environment/autoconf
variable.



Enrico

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Enrico Scholz wrote:

> Chris Spencer <spencercw@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> The configure script checks for the program 'moc' and fails if it
>> doesn't find it. I have installed the qt-devel package, but for some
>> reason it installs moc as moc-qt4, no symlink or anything. Can anyone
>> explain to me why this is, and possibly suggest a suitable workaround?
>
> Use
>
> | PKG_CHECK_MODULES(QT, Qt)
> | QT4_BINDIR=`$PKG_CONFIG Qt --variable bindir`
> | AC_CHECK_TOOLS(MOC, [moc],, [$QT4_BINDIR:$PATH])
>
> This gives most flexibility by using proper defaults while allowing
> users to override detected tool by setting $MOC environment/autoconf
> variable.

Be warned, however, that the Qt.pc file as distributed in fedora, is not yet
upstreamed and is fedora-specific. Hope to rectify that soonish.

-- Rex

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Right, in that case I'll stick to my current method. I have set it to
look for moc-qt4 first, and then moc if it can't find it, and this works
fine.

Thanks for the suggestion though Enrico.

Chris.

Rex Dieter wrote:
| Enrico Scholz wrote:
|
|> Use
|>
|> | PKG_CHECK_MODULES(QT, Qt)
|> | QT4_BINDIR=`$PKG_CONFIG Qt --variable bindir`
|> | AC_CHECK_TOOLS(MOC, [moc],, [$QT4_BINDIR:$PATH])
|>
|> This gives most flexibility by using proper defaults while allowing
|> users to override detected tool by setting $MOC environment/autoconf
|> variable.
|
| Be warned, however, that the Qt.pc file as distributed in fedora, is
not yet
| upstreamed and is fedora-specific. Hope to rectify that soonish.
|
| -- Rex
|
| --
| Fedora-packaging mailing list
| Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
| https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhjwHcACgkQ6iqRtkAADZi+gACg+jZ1ZqlFhW Sx+f4V9K9XE1WO
Y1MAnjMDeTbTQ9kOutJ6KeIjHRUIB0Bh
=XNux
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging