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.
I think there is a point which we might be missing in this long thread. For Qt5 we are not asking for a simple rename because that *would* break stuff for other people, and that's not fair. What we ask is *adding* an executable with a suffixed -qt5, be it as a symlink where the OS allows it or as copy of the executable if there is no other way out. And we want to do it upstream because it's by far the best place to standardize it, because we also want people to build only one code to rule them all ;) -- 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