On Friday, September 21, 2012 04:47:11 PM Thiago Macieira wrote: > This is long, so I'll give you my recommendation first. If you agree with > me, you don't have to read the rest. If you disagree, you have to read my > arguments. > > Recommendation: > --------------- > > Include the major version number (5) in all library base names, like on > Windows, on all platforms. On Windows we already have QtCore5.dll and > QtV85.dll, so I recommend having libQtCore5.so.5. For Mac, I'm not sure of > the naming scheme, but the recommendation applies. > > This recommendation also applies to the static library archives > (libQtCore5.a), qmake library files (libQtCore5.prl), libtool archives > (libQtCore5.la) and pkgconfig files (QtCore5.pc). CMake files already have > the version number. but in a different place (Qt5Core).
As painful as this may be, I agree. We're late to the game, other projects like GStreamer or Gtk+ have been doing this for a long time and bringing out new major versions isn't a big deal for their deployment because they use this pattern and are easily installable in parallel. However it is a big deal for us, so we should react if we want to make life easier for developers to use Qt 5 (and isn't that a goal we all share?). Just this week (or was it last week?) a new major version of GStreamer came out. I just downloaded a bunch of debian files to install them on my machine and bam: No conflict, they were installed nicely in parallel and pkg-config lets me easily choose which version I want. So +1 from me. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
