Attica fails to build - missing files from ECM

[Polyergic (Shad Sterling)]

Attica @0.4.2_1+docs fails in configure with an error message about missing files from ECM:

:info:configure CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:10 (find_package):
:info:configure   Could not find a package configuration file provided by "ECM" (requested
:info:configure   version 0.0.6) with any of the following names:
:info:configure 
:info:configure     ECMConfig.cmake
:info:configure     ecm-config.cmake
:info:configure 
:info:configure   Add the installation prefix of "ECM" to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH or set "ECM_DIR"
:info:configure   to a directory containing one of the above files.  If "ECM" provides a
:info:configure   separate development package or SDK, be sure it has been installed.

Is this an unclaimed dependency? It doesn't seem likely to be any of the ports found by port search \*ecm\*

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

@Polyergic, you are using stock port attica and no local MacPorts source?

Your MacPorts installation has been selfupdated recently?

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

This is simply a result of building (stock) attica with Qt5 installed and where cmake finds it.

For building attica for Qt4/KDE4 you need at least to add -DQT4_BUILD=ON to the configure.args .

The port from my macstrop repo contains the necessary modifications including some for forward compatibility with the upcoming KF5 ports (and a now redundant -qt5 subport, I see).

Nicos should be the ticket owner, btw.

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Thanks, René!

[Polyergic (Shad Sterling)]

@mkae, no local source, selfupdated a few hours before. I did not request attica, it was brought in as a dependency of kdelibs4 and kde4-runtime. Anything I can do to make it work now?

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

The easiest way to get it to build while we find a better solution is to deactivate your qt5 port(s) for the duration of the build. Untested, but I think it should work.

[Polyergic (Shad Sterling)]

It wasn't enough to deactivate qt5, I had to port -p deactivate \*qt5\*, but now attica is installed & activated. Thanks!

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Yes, that's what René meant with "qt5 port(s)". Nice that it worked, but it is only a workaround and needs a proper fix.

[NicosPavlov]

In 00a95b1c/macports-ports:

Attica: Ensure to build with Qt4, even if qt5 is installed (fixes #52689)

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Hi @NicosPavlov, is there a reason why you've ignored the two patches which make Attica work with a qt5 co-installation?

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

@RJVB, why did you remove phonon in your patch?

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

Phonon is a dependency that's added by default by the KDE4 1.1 PG because it's needed by most KDE4 software. Not so for attica. I suppose I noticed this by looking at CMake's output, most KDE projects have it print a summary at the end. That includes a list of the unused variables specified on the command line.

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

Replying to mkae:

Hi @NicosPavlov, is there a reason why you've ignored the two patches which make Attica work with a qt5 co-installation?

You mean with a *KF5* co-installation?

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Yes, of course.

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Replying to RJVB:

... because it's needed by most KDE4 software. Not so for attica.

Oh, I see. Now I remember that you mentioned that a while ago - and I forgot about it in the meantime.

[NicosPavlov]

The patch was doing several things, several of them not related to the issue at hand, so I focused on the part directly related to that ticket. It was also removing the kde4 portgroup and moving headers, which is not related to that ticket, and linked to a more global move of other ports.

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

OK, so, I understand you suggest to file a new ticket or create a PR for the residual bits from those patches?

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

Come to think of it, attica/Qt4 does indeed not depend on KDE4, but I did NOT remove the KDE4 PortGroup, did I?!

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

Well, according to ​the portfile diff you didn't.

I believe that the changes in ​the include dirs are actually quite important to include, no!?

[NicosPavlov]

Replying to mkae:

OK, so, I understand you suggest to file a new ticket or create a PR for the residual bits from those patches?

No, I think it is plentifully covered by other tickets such as #49924, #49595, #49109. I guess that's enough already.

[mkae (Marko Käning)]

OK, cool to see that you have a nice overview of these related tickets. So we can leave this closed then and address the residual bits over there, especially in #49924. Thanks for checking, @NicosPavlov!

[RJVB (René Bertin)]

Replying to mkae:

I believe that the changes in ​the include dirs are actually quite important to include, no!?

Indeed - but not as long as there is no kf5-attica port and if you don't mind coming back and make yet more adjustments. Attica doesn't depend on KDE4 and thus also doesn't inherit a specific KDE4 header install location, which is why that has to be configured explicitly in this port. I saw that as a reason to include the changes to prepare the port for KF5 in one "fell" swoop, but who am I...