On Thursday February 26 2015 20:03:32 Jeremy Whiting wrote:
>Yeah, obviously to share with all users installing data files into
>/Library/Application Support/ is better, I just didn't do that in my test
>since my user doesn't own that folder and I didn't want to install with
>sudo for a test.
True, but (something I didn't want to mention straightaway) that too may be
problematic with MacPorts. The solution there *might* be to use
${prefix}/Library/ApplicationSPACESupport, but I really don't see the point in
going there instead of using more traditional paths.
Then there's the issue that the user may also have non-KDE FreeDesktop
applications installed through MacPorts (or Fink or ...), and those would still
expect their stuff in the usual places, part of which will be shared with KDE.
I don't like the idea to duplicate that stuff.
We could probably work around that by installing the data stuff in the usual
places and modding the build system to install links to those places somewhere
under /Library/Application Support so that QStandardPaths point to the right
places through these links. I think MacPorts does that already with launchd
plists that live under ${prefix}/Library/Launch{Agents,Daemons}.
But I'd still prefer to patch Qt, and will try to come up with a draft
implementation of my runtime selection with compile-time default in the coming
days.
One more thought: the majority of *users* probably won't care exactly where the
shared data stuff is installed. IMHO that means we can be egoists to some
point, and chose what's most convenient for us for our daily dev/maintenance
habits. For me that's clearly to stick as closely as possible to "linuxy
paths", and certainly not to go for a path that has a space in its name...
(among the 1st things I do on a virgin OS X account is `ln -s "Application
Support" ~/Library/AppSupport` ...)
R.
>
>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Aleix Pol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, René J.V. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday February 25 2015 19:10:08 Jeremy Whiting wrote:
>> >
>> >>QStandardPaths there that worked pretty well. In discussion with the Qt
>> >>developers I began to think that we maybe should be installing our data
>> >>files in the places that QStandardPaths expect to find them, rather than
>> >>get QStandardPaths to find files in linuxy paths.
>> >
>> > Even if that were the easy way out, I don't think it's the proper
>> solution if not only because OS X and MS Windows are multi-user machines
>> and are maybe more often used like that than Linux desktop installs.
>> Installing stuff in $HOME/Library/Application Support is thus not an option
>> (besides, there's that obnoxious space in the filename that's bound to
>> cause issues).
>> >
>> > If we can't find a best-of-both-worlds solution that we all agree on and
>> can go into Qt, we'll just have to roll our own (which might be
>> incorporated after all once it's proved its value ;))
>> >
>> > Reminder to self: add my views to wherever we decided to continue the
>> stalled discussion from gerrit.
>> >
>> > R
>>
>> IIRC, the solution is using /Library instead, although my OS X
>> knowledge is rusty.
>>
>> Aleix
>>
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
