Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 11:12:11, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> IMO it’s probably a mistake to bind the major so version number to the
> number after Qt. There was a reason why Thiago wanted this, but I don’t
> quite remember why.
>
> IMO it would be better to have Qt5 in the lib name as an indication that
> this is part of Qt 5. And the .so versions for add-ons should be somewhat
> decoupled to give add-ons some freedom to work with their version numbers
> and maybe even introduce a new major .so version if required.
I didn't want Qt$MAJOR in the name. When I wrote the code, I had hardcoded the
"5", so we could have got libQt5Enginio.so.1. In fact, that is what we need:
we need a source version ("Qt5") and a binary version ("so.5").
But when it went through review, we decided that we should instead make it
Qt6-safe and encoded the module's $$MAJOR_VERSION.
We should probably just insert QtCore's major version in every module.
--
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
