bug#67608: qtbase fails to build on i686

[Efraim Flashner]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 06:42:10PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 01:32 PM, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After recent mesa/xorg upgrades, qtbase fails to build on i686, per
> >> <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/2700964/details>.
> >
> > I saw this when I was working on the mesa-updates branch, but I didn't
> > think it was a new failure. I looked back just now and even going to
> > July or further back I don't see any successful builds of qtbase-6.*
> > on i686-linux. The most recent version has the same failures as this
> > log, pre-mesa-updates. Looked like a previous version of qtbase-6 had
> > a different failure though.
> 
> Indeed.  I wonder why Cuirass flagged the failure as a new one.

Maybe it was mixing up qtbase@5 and qtbase@6 for determining if it had
successfully built before?

> [...]
> 
> > As for the actual cause, I don't have a clue. There was a failure
> > cause by an update on that branch, which I had fixed in
> > aee3c5a894fddf88810f18fa8880b423b078b3fa (from libxkbcommon update).
> >
> > Was there a version of qtbase-6 that builds on i686?
> 
> OK.  I don't seem to find one looking at CI.  We should probably report
> this upstream if it hasn't already been.

I found it broken when I was going through a big rebuild and I believe
it tracked it down to the -DFEATURE_xxx=OFF flags that we've been
carrying since qt-4.  Once I removed them i686 stopped trying to use
128-bit numbers and compiled successfully.  As a comparison, Debian
doesn't use those flags.

I've closed the bug since it now builds, but feel free to re-open it if
we want to revisit removing the flags or anything.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature