[qt5] reactivate qt5-activeqt for CI coverage

[Neumann-A]

This is required so that qt5-tools is not skipped in CI which affects CI coverage.
In general Qt5 ports should not be build apart from each other but as complete package!
Or VCPKG should accept installing duplicated *.dll in every folder except for /bin or debug/bin. The alternative would be to accept executables in bin which would make duplicating any dlls unnecessary

The layout of the Qt5 ports in tools/bin is required in this way since external tools lik the QtVsTools expect every tool in one and the same bin folder.

[ras0219-msft]

Would an alternative solution be to have qt5-basketweaving install all of

bin/Qt5Basketweaving.dll
tools/bin/qt5/Qt5Basketweaving.dll
tools/bin/qt5/Qt5Basketweaver.exe

But not

tools/bin/qt5/Qt5Core.dll

which is expected to be provided by qt5-core?

I understand this prevents the use of vcpkg_copy_tool_dependencies(); but this does preserve unique file ownership. It would also place all of the Qt5 tools in the same directory (tools/bin/qt5/) for use with QtVsTools.

[Neumann-A]

I understand this prevents the use of vcpkg_copy_tool_dependencies(); but this does preserve unique file ownership.

This probably means that every Qt port would install its DLL twice. once in bin or plugins and once in tools/qt5/bin or tools/qt5/bin/plugins unless I get a list of all installed DLL's into tools/qt5/bin if all qt5 ports are installed.

[ras0219-msft]

Yeah, the idea is that all Qt5 dlls would be in tools/qt5/bin once all qt5 ports are installed.

However, there is one annoying issue with diamonds (not sure if this is actually a problem). If Qt5Databases uses libpq and Qt5Banking also uses libpq, it's not clear who should own tools/qt5/bin/libpq.dll. If that doesn't happen, great, but if it does, we'd need to add a stub helper port (qt5-libpq-dependency) to own that particular file which is depended upon by both.

[ras0219-msft]

The "hack" LGTM though, it's a good compromise for now!