Re: Qt 6 on X32 and HPPA ports: upstream requiring proof of usage

On 2023-02-02 2:01 p.m., Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:54:44 -03 Helge Deller escribió:
>> On 2/2/23 19:21, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
>>> El jueves, 2 de febrero de 2023 15:08:49 -03 Sam James escribió:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Pruning whatever code they do not test on the CI and does not has active
>>>>> users, no matter how short/long it can be.
>>>> At
>>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/437296/comments/9b34cbab_87
>>>> ce
>>>> d2e4, someone suggested adding cross HPPA (and maybe others) to their
>>>> Docker setup. That could be a start.
>>> I'm quite in contact with the CI staff. I sincerely don't think they will
>>> want to add yet another CI image except they have a big client requiring
>>> it :-/
>> I think this will only be debian, and gentoo - both distributions support
>> hppa.
>>> I'll bring it up next week, but I will not have high expectations on this.
>> Btw, I did noticed that the hppa build on debian failed, but was too busy
>> with other things to look into it. And, I was hoping someone would fix it
>> as it seemed trivial.
>> Beside the CI, we have two debian porterboxes for hppa, so testing is
>> possible.
> Well, that's already a bad signal :-/ It means there are no real users for it
> (yet?), else you would be seeing complaints :-(
That's being snarky.  qt6-base came out of experimental on 2022-12-30.

It's full of 32-bit issues:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030315

But the main problem is linking a shared object against a non-PIC archive library.

I was the one that provided the Q_PROCESSOR defines.  At that time the package built successfully.

I assume this is about money (Commercial contract support).

Dave