Created attachment 101377 [details] [review]
Fix moc-qt5 detection

So you fix your thing and break others? Not a good idea ;)

(In reply to comment #2)
> So you fix your thing and break others? Not a good idea ;)

I suspected it was broken for everyone. I do not have an other (non cross compile) moc-qt5 to test with, but I would expect it to do something like this:

$ moc-qt5 -v
moc-qt5 5.2.1


But obviously, if that is not the case, my fix won't work.

Can you tell me what the output of your moc-qt5 is?

see bug #72744 as the git log mentions.

(In reply to comment #4)
> see bug #72744 as the git log mentions.

That only mentions moc, not moc-qt5.

My patch only affects the code searching for a moc-qt5 executable, not the code searching for a moc executable.

So I don't think it will break others.

sure, but who says that moc-qt5 can can return
"moc 5.2"
?
Is it that hard just adding your case to the regexp?

(In reply to comment #6)
> sure, but who says that moc-qt5 can can return
> "moc 5.2"
> ?
> Is it that hard just adding your case to the regexp?

No, it is not hard, but it would be adding a workaround instead of fixing a bug.

I've just tested my moc-qt5 by renaming in to 'foo', and then it gives:

$ foo -v
foo 5.2.1

So it is just returning the command name and the moc version number.

In the configure script we are looking for a command (xxx-)moc-qt5, so that will return (xxx-)moc-qt5 5.2.1, which will never match 'moc 5'. Matching with 'moc 5' is wrong. In my opinion it is better to fix that by matching with 'moc-qt5 5' instead.

> Matching with 'moc 5' is wrong
No, it's not wrong, if it returned moc 5 in the future (you can't predict past or future behavior) i don't see any problem on moc-qt5 returning moc 5.9

So please, just add it to the regexp.

(In reply to comment #8)
> > Matching with 'moc 5' is wrong
> No, it's not wrong,

All evidence suggests it has never worked for anyone. Also, looking at the code it seems to be a copy & paste error. So it seems wrong to me. 

> if it returned moc 5 in the future (you can't predict
> past or future behavior) i don't see any problem on moc-qt5 returning moc 5.9

But it doesn't return moc 5 now nor did it ever. I can think of lots of other strings it might return in the future, but as we cannot predict the future it seems silly to have checks making guesses about that.

> So please, just add it to the regexp.

I do not agee with this, but when you really want to go that way, I will send a new patch for it.

Created attachment 101386 [details] [review]
Fix moc-qt5 detection

Created attachment 101415 [details] [review]
Fix moc-qt5 detection

Pushed, thanks.

This shows why we should only be using the cmake buildsystem :D