Em ter 27 maio 2014, às 14:12:50, Stephen Kelly escreveu: > The above differences in the naming convention seem needless. The module > could be versioned independently without that inconsistency in the > filenames. > > The library filenames for Enginio do not have a version in their basename > at all, as was discussed and actioned for all modules before Qt 5.0. Is > that a mistake, or is this stuff a free-for-all for all new modules?
The source version number is only required once you break source compatibility, so it's technically not required now. However, I question why we have a Qt module that doesn't have "Qt" in the name. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
