On Tuesday 20 January 2015 01:49:01 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > > For the sake of completeness, we are not allowed to do so in the same > > > strength that the Qt project doesn't allows binary incompatibility > > > between > > > minor versions, and for which us downstreamers are very grateful :) > > > > I know you're not allowed to do that, but there's no technical reason why > > that is so. Unlike binary compatibility. It's a choice. > > You might want to take the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard as a technical > reason, plus the fact that we do our best to keep stuff installed by > packages away from stuff installed by the system's admin, like /opt, simply > to avoid problems.
The FHS does not restrict /opt to admin-installed packages. It simply says "add-on application software packages", unlike /usr/local, for which it says " for use by the system administrator when installing software locally". > Is it in that same light of alternatives and compromises that I'm at least > asking to reconsider the case of user-facing stuff, and to take into > consideration all the experience we gained during this for the next major > release. We distros might not get the best solution, but at least let's work > to try to let users don't get into bugs we know might happen. I'm willing to hear it again, but only if people agree to approach it with an open mind. Given the emails by both Kevin and Ossi, I don't think we'll have that. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
