More libalkimia problems/questions was: problems compiling 4.8 on system with both qt4 and qt5

[Jack]

First, the good news: I have reverted to libalkimia 4.3.2 and created a  
successful gentoo ebuild for 4.8 git head.  I have successfully  
remapped my Chase credit card usingn the Client-UUID.  Now, at least I  
can catch up on actually tracking my finances separate from working on  
all the below issues.

On 2016.10.22 17:20, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Am 22.10.2016 um 20:02 schrieb Jack:
> > On 2016.10.17 02:44, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> >> Am 17.10.2016 um 00:52 schrieb Jack:
>>>> Something Alan sent me made me look and think it might have been  
>>>> because alkimia was compiled with qt5, but I'm no longer sure  
>>>> about that.
>>> alkimia >= 5.0.0 fetches Qt5 dependencies into a project using it.  
>>> You need to revert alkimia to  version <= 4.3.2. Another option  
>>> would be to (re)add Qt4 support to recent alkimia.
> >> Ralf
> >>
>> I realized that converting libalkimit >= 5.0.0 to use QT4 is  
>> probably not as good a solution as I was thinking, as it would be a  
>> conversion, not an addition, so that version would still not be good  
>> for the frameworks version of KMM.
> yes
> >
>> So, I figured I would installing 4.3.2 somewhere out of my main  
>> tree, and point cmake for 4.8 git heat to that version.  However,  
>> nothing I have tried has worked - it keeps finding the version of  
>> libalkimia from it's git head (under/usr) instead.  Oddly, it looks  
>> like CMakeLists.txt has a test and should fail for libalkimia >=  
>> 6.0.0 but it claims it finds 6.0.9 but is not failing.  Is this a  
>> cmake bug, or am I not understanding something?
> I and Thomas already tried to fix that, but it looks to be complex,  
> because alkimia switched from 'module' to 'config' mode. See below  
> for a solution.
> >
>> I have tried setting CMAKE_PREFIX_DIR (and several variations) both  
>> as an environment variable and with -D, and I have tried setting  
>> LibAlkimia_DIR, but cmake is either ignoring them, or not finding  
>> what it wants.  Is perhaps part of the problem that prior to 5.0.0,  
>> libalkimia only produce a FindLibAlkimia.cmake and not and  
>> ....Config.cmake?
> Also see below
> >
>> For now, I will uninstall the more recent libalkimia from my main  
>> tree and install the older version, but I'd prefer to have all the  
>> frameworks related stuff in my main tree, and any remnant KDE4 stuff  
>> that cannot coexist installed elsewhere.  On that note, I don't know  
>> if it is inherent to the alkimia install or to the gentoo ebuild  
>> that the qt4/kde4 qt5/frameworks versions cannot be installed at the  
>> same time, since several of the files have identical names in both.
> This looks to be a regression of porting anything to Qt5 without  
> taking into account that stable versions may be maintained longer  
> than expected.
I don't know if I'd call it a regression, but it certainly causes some  
problems.  When I started working on compliling the frameworks version  
of KMM, I kept all frameworks stuff separate from the KDE4 in my main  
tree (/usr).  Now that I have make most of my main tree frameworks  
based, I'm finding more of these problems.  I don't think KMM itself  
can have both versions at once.  I'll certainly test your version of  
libalkimia.  However, in the main kdelibs/frameworks, the big issue is  
that the pim stuff can not have 4/frameworks both installed.  Given  
that KMM4 has a hard dep on pimlibs, now that I have 4.8 from git head  
working in my main tree, I'll keep all my framework stuff separate -  
although if I use your below to get both qt4 and qt5 libalkimia 6.0  
installed, then only KMM itself will need to be separate.

> > Am I just trying the impossible?
> No, I just pushed a commit to a personal repo at  
> https://github.com/rhabacker/alkimia, which readd's Qt4 support to  
> latest version of alkimia. You can build and install alkimia side by  
> side to the Qt5 variant. You may try that. See the commit log how to  
> build alkimia in this way.
I'm not sure how soon I'll have time to try, but I will definitely look  
at what you've done.
Thanks for all the effort.

> Ralf
Jack