Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 25.05.09 23:17:55, Jed Brown wrote: > As soon as people start installing differing versions of the same > software into the same prefix they've already screwed up anyway. Thats > not supported by any software I use on a daily basis (even KDE3 and KDE4 > are only co-installable in some parts into the same directory).
Suppose I have one version of Qt in /usr and a different one in /usr/local. Similarly, I have different versions of Foo in those directories. These are completely unrelated packages so this actually isn't that rare, or especially bad organization. >> With autoconf, for example, you would normally be able to specify >> --with-foo-dir=/path/a --with-bar-dir=/path/b. I don't see why there >> is so much resistance to making this sort of thing work in a reliable >> and consistent manner. > > Because in the case of Qt4, qmake already knows _exactly_ where > include's and libs are for the version it has been built with. That > information is hardcoded into qmake (adjustable by qt.conf based on > qmake's absolute path). So there's simply no need to go through the > hassle of specifying both separately. foo and bar are completely *unrelated* packages. I should be able to choose their installations independently, and without needing to manually flush the cache in the build directory (admittedly the deeper issue here). Jed
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
