On Monday 19 January 2015 15:01:20 Harri Porten wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2015, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Thiago Macieira wrote: > >> The one requirement that came from the Qt Project was that the tools > >> would > >> not be renamed. > > > > And the one requirement that came from the distros was that the tools must > > be renamed. This was made very clear from the beginning. All other > > solutions are and will always be inherently flawed. > > > > You also never gave any convincing argument as to why you refused to > > rename > > the binaries. > > Distributors are going a great job creating Qt packages. But not everyone > is using their distro's Qt. In fact, looking at our customers I'd say that > most of them have their own Qt install somewhere on their disk. Possible > several installations even. Renamed binaries won't cope with that variety. > Our product relies on a --with-qmake switch or PATH for selection. Version > detections follows wherever named. Renamed binaries won't help. Or even > make our life harder as it needs to be.
If we are going to focus *just* on customers, yes, you might be right. But as far as I understand this is not just about customers, but also about users. And believe me, we have plenty of those ;) -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development