[PATCH] README.rst: remove unnecessary dependency for qcam

[Kieran Bingham]

Quoting Quentin Schulz (2025-03-17 12:30:48)
> Hi Kieran,
> 
> On 3/17/25 1:21 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > Quoting Quentin Schulz (2025-03-11 13:06:25)
> >> +Cc Ricardo, the original commit author, in case I'm missing something
> >>
> >> On 3/11/25 2:01 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> >>> [foss+libcamera at 0leil.net appears similar to someone who previously sent you email, but may not be that person. Learn why this could be a risk at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >>>
> >>> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>
> >>>
> >>> The introducing commit (dff416a84b78 ("README: Add missing package for
> >>> Qt5 tools"); for Qt 5 originally) stated that without the dependency we
> >>> would get the following messages:
> >>>
> >>>       Program /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/bin/lrelease found: NO
> >>>       Program lrelease-qt5 found: NO
> >>>       Program lrelease found: NO found  but need: '== 5.14.2'
> >>>
> >>> That is still the case but this actually is neither breaking the build
> >>> nor is it doing anything to the outcome of the build as qcam is bit to
> >>> bit identical with and without that package.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, let's not mislead users to install an unnecessary package.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>
> >>> ---
> >>> This was tested within a debian:bookworm container with and without the
> >>> package, checked out both at master and introducing commit. qcam is bit
> >>> to bit identical in both cases.
> > 
> > That's the evidence I would look for in this, so
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com>
> > 
> > Is this still the case on Qt6? I assume/infer that the reason you want
> > to remove this dependency is because something has changed in qt6 ?
> > 
> > If so - adding that to the commit message would help clarify things, as
> > you are removing a qt6 package, but only discussing qt5 in the commit.
> > 
> 
> This was tested for both qt5 and qt6, results are both bit to bit identical.
> 
> I stated that in the Buildroot patch: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20250311-libcamera-qt6-v1-1-4897aadc6fe3@cherry.de/ 
> but forgot to add it here before submitting the patch.
> 
> I can reword the commit log to something like:
> 
> """
> The introducing commit (dff416a84b78 ("README: Add missing package for
> Qt5 tools"); for Qt 5 originally) stated that without the dependency we
> would get the following messages:
> 
>        Program /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/bin/lrelease found: NO
>        Program lrelease-qt5 found: NO
>        Program lrelease found: NO found  but need: '== 5.14.2'
> 
> That was the case for qt5 and is still true for qt6 but this actually
> is neither breaking the build nor is it doing anything to the outcome
> of the build (for both qt5 and qt6) as qcam is bit to bit identical
> with and without that package.
> 
> Therefore, let's not mislead users to install an unnecessary package.
> """
> 
> Would that work for you? Do you want me to send a v2 for that?

No need for a v2 at the moment ... we can easily fix up the commit, it's
just the justification I want to get right. Stating that this is still
the case for Qt6 fixes my concern ;-)

Especially as this will now cause users to have a warning reintroduced
in their setup logs! Why is that now acceptable when it wasn't before?

Is there anything we can do to stop meson from looking for lrelease-qt5?
Who's looking for that in the build?

--
Kieran


> 
> Cheers,
> Quentin