[Buildroot] [PATCH 09/10] package/qt6/qt6tools: build only host linguist tools

[Roy Kollen Svendsen]

lør. 17. mai 2025 kl. 07:18 skrev Roy Kollen Svendsen <
roykollensvendsen at gmail.com>:

>
>
> fre. 16. mai 2025 kl. 22:52 skrev Thomas Petazzoni <
> thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com>:
>
>> Hello Roy,
>>
>> Thanks for the great patch series! I'm going through it, and I'm hoping
>> to merge it progressively in the next days. I have one question on this
>> patch though.
>>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 12:36:25 +0200
>> Roy Kollen Svendsen <roykollensvendsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Strip down qt6tools to the bare minimum by:
>> > - Removing the target package
>> > - Disabling all features except for the linguist tools
>> >
>>
>
------

> > This change addresses ongoing issues with qt6tools and focuses on its
>>
> > primary intended use: providing linguist tools for translating Qt6
>> > applications during the build process.
>>
> >
>> > The linguist tools are essential for internationalization (i18n) of Qt6
>> > applications and are now available as a host package for
>> cross-compilation
>> > purposes.
>> >
>>
> > This modification should resolve stability issues while still maintaining
>>
> > the core functionality required for Qt6 application translation.
>>
> ------

Should probably remove the lines above from the commit message. And replace
it by something like:

Reboot the package to avoid solving build problems that should not exist in
the first place.



> >
>> > update host package
>>
>> What does this mean?
>>
>>
> The last sentence ended up there unintentionally during a rebase.
>
>
>> > Signed-off-by: Roy Kollen Svendsen <roykollensvendsen at gmail.com>
>>
>> Could you clarify why PATCH 09/10 and 10/10 are separate? It feels odd
>> to drop the target package, only to re-introduce it one commit after. I
>> was thinking of squashing both commits together. What do you think?
>>
>
> I think it is best to drop patch 10/10 for now. I can reintroduce that
> change when I need it.
>
> By the way, is 9/10 too large? Should we split the commit? Maybe it is
> better to gradually
> fix the concrete build failures than "starting from scratch?"
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> Thomas
>> --
>> Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
>> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
>> https://bootlin.com
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20250517/8ce3b5c9/attachment-0001.htm>