> On 11 Aug 2014, at 23:15, Jake Petroules <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was mostly a counterargument to people complaining against copying > frameworks into the bundle. However, copying frameworks into the bundle is > the correct solution, and is what must be done in the end. > > It'll be nice when qbs solves all these problems with the run process being > powered by an in-place installation…
On to my now standard question: Can you summarize the discussion so far into a proposal on what you want to change? Keep it as short as possible :) For example, I think it’s understood that (incremental) framework coping is fast - no need to go into details. On the other hand I think it’s important to make clear which parts of the current workflow we will leave behind. Thanks, Morten _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
