On 5 Dec 2014, at 2:38 am, Alejandro Exojo <s...@badopi.org> wrote: > > Then I searched a bit in the branch of the mer-qt/qtbase repo. I see you > don't > use any mkspec for SailfishOS or Jolla, right? That's where I thought you > might have it, and where I think it could be. Blackberry sets there the > QMAKE_PLATFORM and Q_OS_BLACKBERRY.
Tizen also and their own branch even. There are also quite a few other devices that have their own mkspec, so there is precedence for supporting a sailfish/jolla platform mkspec. ~/depot/qt/qt5/qtbase/mkspecs/devices $ [tizen]> ls blackberry-playbook-armle-v7-qcc/ linux-archos-gen8-g++/ linux-beagleboard-g++/ linux-mipsel-broadcom-97425-g++/ linux-snowball-g++/ blackberry-playbook-armv7le-qcc/ linux-arm-amlogic-8726M-g++/ linux-g++-tizen/ linux-rasp-pi-g++/ linux-tegra2-g++/ blackberry-playbook-x86-qcc/ linux-arm-hisilicon-hix5hd2-g++/ linux-imx53qsb-g++/ linux-sh4-stmicro-ST7108-g++/ common/ linux-arm-trident-pnx8473-g++/ linux-imx6-g++/ linux-sh4-stmicro-ST7540-g++/ > > Yes, yes. I know there is a solution: pass a parameter to the qmake > invocation. Store the invocation flag on the RPM packaging for final > deployment, and maybe a .pro.shared file for development. That's what Puzzle > Master has now too. Still I think there is some value in having this sorted > out in a more general way, specially given that you'll want people to also > distinguish a build for the Jolla phone or the Jolla tablet. > Well, this one is easy. Tablet isn't arm based. :) So far, I don't think Jolla has actually needed it's own mkspec, and using the defaults is working ok. I'm not against the idea and would probably +2 any qt-project MR's, but then Jolla would have to use it in their builds. _______________________________________________ SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list To unsubscribe, please send a mail to devel-unsubscr...@lists.sailfishos.org
