-----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(a)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(a)redhat.com | https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Chris Spencer <spencercw(a)googlemail.com&gt; writes: 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

-----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(a)redhat.com | https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging