Trinity options (Was: Re: cmake inclusion?)

Robert Xu robxu9 at
Tue Dec 14 05:20:17 PST 2010

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 02:14, DJ Lucas <dj at> wrote:
> On 11/28/2010 02:17 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 14:30, DJ Lucas <dj at> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2010 12:55 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I finally have some working cmake scripts for Trinity, courtesy of
>>>> samelian on Freenode, since we do not want to use a crappy and old
>>>> autoconf.
>>>> I'm testing them right now, which brings me to another subject: Will
>>>> cmake be included into BLFS?
>>> Either now or later. If you've got working scripts for Trinity, then now
>>> is as good a time as any. I'm currently prepping for Xorg-7.6. Looks
>>> like we are waiting on only a couple of modules (libdrm-2.4.23,
>>> evdev-2.6.0, xf86-video-intel-2.14.0, and xorg-server-1.9.3, and a
>>> couple of lesser important packages that escape me right now). Does
>>> cmake drag in any deps that aren't a part of the book as it is now?
>> As far as I'm aware, no.
>> Hm. All I am waiting on now is for scripts for arts and tqtinterface,
>> unless I just missed them.
>> Once the cmake scripts for those come in, I'll test them. Hopefully we
>> can throw in a minimal Trinity system to replace that old KDE3 :)
>> *hails samelian, he is the greatest for making Trinity work with cmake ;P*
>> You can see what I've seen so far at
> Robert,
> Sorry in advance for the length of this post, but lots of work to be
> done and I want to make sure we are on the same page.
> I pulled everything from SVN.  Looks like everything is exactly 3.5.12,
> with openssl-1.0.0b fixes and cmake scripts. I can roll new tarballs
> from there if desired, or can make patches to add the openssl and cmake
> changes. I'm more inclined to roll our own simply because of the ugly
> (non-standard) layout. If it were only arts and tqtinterface, I could
> deal (and still _can_), but I don't want to explain the same thing 20
> times in the book. I'd hope that going forward, the release tarballs
> will be a little more polished. I might get in touch with the maintainer
> and see if that can't happen for future releases after we have a nice
> clean build layout in the book.

I see.

> Also, reviewing your notes at the above link.  Looks like tqtinterface
> builds fine without qt4 (moved it out of /opt/qt4 and removed from
> config and refreshed the linker cache). I haven't gotten into the meat
> of it yet, but if this is any indication of the quality of the cmake
> build system, I'm thinking I might actually like this beast, just a
> little learning curve to deal with.

Yea, it's quite flexible, if not annoying at times ;)

> Going back to tqtinterface, couple of things I didn't understand. First
> is that the release version is defined (MAJOR,MINOR,MICRO) as 3.5.12,
> but the soname of the library is 4.2.0. Second, I see the qt4
> directories...are these required for later? I was moving on and building
> deps for arts, but I haven't actually went beyond tqtinterface yet as I
> don't want to get too far in and then have to start over (not that it is
> really a big deal).

There's work on porting tqtinterface to qt4, and that's heavily under
(Apparently a lot of Qt3 functions don't exist in Qt4, so that's why
this exists in the first place)

Not required for now, and probably not anytime soon.

> No mention is made of QT4 other than tqtinterface providing the
> 'groundwork' (or intermediary step as I understood it) for migrating to
> QT4. Several other examples are provided that highlight dependency
> differences from the latest official KDE release, so I'm not convinced
> by that document that QT4 is required yet. The fact that tqtinterface
> builds without QT4 seems to provide further evidence that it is not
> required. Since it really is not a big deal, I'm going to crash tonight,
> and push forward tomorrow without QT4 unless you know for certain that
> my observations are incorrect.

Yea, push forward without Qt4 for now. It's not needed.
And tqtinterface practically provides all the functions for drawing
the DE and WM in Qt3 and Qt4.

> Finally, I ask your opinion on provided packages. Barring the additional
> bindings, do any other packages need to be exported beyond koffice and
> k3b (already in the book) in order to to provide a fairly complete
> desktop environment?

No. After kdebase, it's up to the user on how to proceed.
If they want admin tools, games, etc... Then they can add them.
(I think I might have an ugly hack to force autoconf, since there's no
cmake for those yet)

> -- DJ Lucas
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> --
> FAQ:
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

later, Robert Xu

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list