qscintilla2

[Neal Becker]

Here is my start at qscintilla2. It so far builds/installs the qt4 part.

Question:
Should we build 1 set of packages for qt3, and a second set for qt4? (A set
here means qscintilla, qscintilla-designer, qscintilla-devel), as in:

Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla-snapshot.20071205-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla-designer-snapshot.20071205-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla-devel-snapshot.20071205-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm


https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qscintilla-snapshot.20071205-3.fc8.src.rpm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace

[Rex Dieter]

Post by Neal Becker
Here is my start at qscintilla2. It so far builds/installs the qt4 part.
Should we build 1 set of packages for qt3, and a second set for qt4? (A set

Ideally, yes, but I don't think they can be installed in parallel. Last
I checked, they both installed a shlib with the same soname (ie,
conflicting).

Worst case, we simply pick *one* to use/install. If that's the case,
I'd argue sticking with qscintilla1 for pre-F9, and qscintilla2 for F9.
When/if qscintilla2 is rock-solid, we could consider building it for
previous releases too.

-- Rex

-- Rex

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace

[Neal Becker]

Post by Rex Dieter

Post by Neal Becker
Here is my start at qscintilla2. It so far builds/installs the qt4 part.
Should we build 1 set of packages for qt3, and a second set for qt4? (A

Ideally, yes, but I don't think they can be installed in parallel. Last
I checked, they both installed a shlib with the same soname (ie,
conflicting).
Worst case, we simply pick *one* to use/install. If that's the case,
I'd argue sticking with qscintilla1 for pre-F9, and qscintilla2 for F9.
When/if qscintilla2 is rock-solid, we could consider building it for
previous releases too.

Please consider:

https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qscintilla-snapshot.20071205-1.fc8.src.rpm

This will build qt4 shared libs as: e.g.: /usr/lib64/libqscintilla2-qt4.so.3

It builds both qt3 and qt4. I have so far tested that it builds OK, I haven't
tested if any of this actually works.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace

[Rex Dieter]

Post by Neal Becker
https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qscintilla-snapshot.20071205-1.fc8.src.rpm
This will build qt4 shared libs as: e.g.: /usr/lib64/libqscintilla2-qt4.so.3
It builds both qt3 and qt4. I have so far tested that it builds OK, I haven't
tested if any of this actually works.

Oh, looks like we may have a winner. Did you patch, or did upstream get
a clue and fix it? :)

Neal,
Would you be interested in helping maintain one or both of these
packages in fedora?

-- Rex

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace

[Neal Becker]

Post by Rex Dieter

Post by Neal Becker
https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qscintilla-snapshot.20071205-1.fc8.src.rpm
/usr/lib64/libqscintilla2-qt4.so.3
It builds both qt3 and qt4. I have so far tested that it builds OK, I
haven't tested if any of this actually works.

Oh, looks like we may have a winner. Did you patch, or did upstream get
a clue and fix it? :)

I patched it. I've been making some more progress on it, but now I have
another question. What about python bindings? I modified this so it will
build/install python bindings, but only for qt4.

Right now, I have one source package that builds:
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/SRPMS/qscintilla2-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.src.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-designer-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-designer-qt3-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-qt3-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-devel-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-devel-qt3-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-python-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/nbecker/RPM/RPMS/x86_64/qscintilla2-debuginfo-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.x86_64.rpm

I'm trying to figure out how to coexist with qscintilla-1, and the best idea
I've come up with is to call this qscintilla2 so as to not screw up the
existing qscintilla-1.7. What do you think of this idea?

The current srpm is here:
https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qscintilla2-snapshot.20071205-6.fc8.src.rpm

Post by Rex Dieter
Neal,
Would you be interested in helping maintain one or both of these
packages in fedora?

OK.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace