[lsb-discuss] Different behaviour between 4.0 release and 4.0 from 4.1 beta

[Craig Scott]

After some more digging, it would appear that the changes made between 4.0 and 4.1 beta have allowed the Qt build to support GTK themes. The 4.0 build previously resulted in Qt's configure step disabling GTK support, presumably because headers were missing or did not pull in the expected dependent headers. Looking at the diffs between 4.0 and 4.1 beta, I can see that there have been various gtk-related additions to various headers. Unfortunately, Qt's configure does not report anything at all about GTK other than whether or not it will be built. For other parts, it shows the test used and result of the compiler output from that test, but not for GTK. :(

This looks like the bug is in Qt, not LSB, since the LSB headers are correct - it's just that Qt has made assumptions about header ordering. I'll follow up with bug reports to Nokia on this one.

Cheers.


On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:30:18 am Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > I was able to successfully build Qt 4.7.1 using the LSB 4.0
> > compilers as obtained from the linux foundation LSB 4.0 yum
> > repository. I thought I'd check the more recent packages that
> > are available in the 4.1 beta, so I moved to the 4.1 yum
> > repository and set my LSBCC_LSBVERSION environment variable to
> > 4.0. In theory, this should also have worked fine, but I'm
> > seeing some differences. Specifically, the compiler error
> > (shown at the end of this email) indicates that the Xlib.h
> > library is now being pulled in where is wasn't before. Qt
> > detects this because it needs to surround the inclusion of the
> > Xlib.h header with some preprocessor defines. The end result
> > is a failed build with the LSB 4.1 beta.
> > 
> > Is anyone aware of changes to headers which would result in
> > Xlib.h being pulled in now with the 4.1 beta packages where it
> > would not have been pulled in with the 4.0 packages?
> 
> Not specifically, but there have been some changes (relatively
> small it looks like).
> 
> This sounds like a bug of some sort.
> 

-- 
Dr Craig Scott
Computational Software Engineering Team Leader, CSIRO (CMIS)
Melbourne, Australia