Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Needs non-QtCreator build system #4

Open
linas opened this issue Dec 26, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

Needs non-QtCreator build system #4

linas opened this issue Dec 26, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@linas
Copy link

linas commented Dec 26, 2014

Current version of papagayo requires the QTCreator IDE.

QtCreator is not fully supported on Ubunutu 14.04 LTS (trusty) -- starting it generates an error message on 'import QtQuick 2.1' and it appears that QtQuick version 2.1 is not avaiable for Ubuntu.

Anyway: as a matter of principle, a build system should never require an IDE; that makes it impossible to automate on a buildbot or in docker.

@notklaatu
Copy link

Strictly speaking, you do not need Qt Creator to build. You can build it from the shell by creating a GNU Makefile with qmake.

Here are instructions, which I've added to the README file and issued a pull request.

This builds on Slackware for me. I haven't tested it on Ubuntu but as long as Qt5 and qmake are installed, everything should work the same:

If you want to build from the shell (without the GUI), then use qmake (this may be called qmake-qt5 on your system, depending on what Qt libraries you have installed).

First, make sure you have Qt5 libraries and headers installed!

Next, use qmake-qt5 to generate a build file from the Qt .pro file:

$ mkdir build
$ qmake-qt5 DESTDIR=bld Papagayo.pro

Then make it as usual:

$ make -j4 

Test what you have built; the binary is inside the build folder you made. After you confirm that this works, you can install it with checkconfig or makepkg or just make install, depending on your distribution and personal preference.

@linas
Copy link
Author

linas commented Feb 22, 2016

thanks, that sounds reasonable. I guess this bug should be closed when pull req #6 gets merged, then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants