dick balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote:
> >> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >>> ... you need to smuggle a `-std=c++11` or `-std=gnu++11` into the g++ command
> > spot on. adding that option allows the process to progress until make enters
> > the 'qt/gui' directory, when compilation fails with missing headers (eg
> > QtWidgets).
> The correct magic words are
> CONFIG += c++11
> in each of the .pro files.
ah, thank you for that. qmake documentation is not installed on my machine.
> > I'll need to think whether I really want to upgrade (from 4.8.7) to 5.11, I
> I don't think qtpovray will build with Qt-4.8.
correct, it's missing all the frontend stuff it seems. (unless my memory is
totally off, the library is organised substantially different from the 3.0
version I upgraded to all these years ago)
> > remember it (building from source) being a seriously lengthy affair in 2010 or
> > so.
> which is why I finally switched from slackware to ubuntu. Upgrading
> apache and tomcat and php just became more tedious than I wanted.
yes, the java stuff always needed .. that bit extra.
if I do find the source, I likely will upgrade[*], it's just .. an unwelcome
addition on the ever-increasing todo list.
[*] I really am quite curious now to see 'qtpovray' live.
> > in addition, I have not even found the source archive on the qt-project.org
> > website yet, only link(s) to online installers. </sigh>
> On 06/22/2018 12:12 PM, jr wrote:
> > btw, replying to clipka you wrote: "99% of packages don't do symlinks."
> > the Slackware 'makepkg' does, just like .. "the big boys".:-)
> Yes. If you want to see symlink hell try RedHat. Everything is
> minimally a symlink to a symlink. Everything; even the files in /etc
:-) cannot be avoided though, if only for shared lib names. 'makepkg' is
reasonably smart. it looks for existing symlinks in the compiled and built
s/ware, and generates a shell script which re-creates the links at the end of
Post a reply to this message