Darren J Moffat wrote:
> The pkg-config file should be in /usr/lib/pkgconfig we already set
> precedence for this in other cases. I have no problem with providing
> multiple pkgconfig files under the path you gave but the canonical
> version of qt should have one in /usr/lib/pkgconfig
Which version of QT is the "canonical version of qt" ?
4.4.1 ? 4.5.0 ?
Trolltech makes no claims as to any of QT4's versions being "canonical".
>> Or, one can say --with-qt-include=${QTDIR}/include
>> --with-qt-libs=${QTDIR}/lib
>
> $QTDIR isn't defined in my environment.
>>> Is this the common layout on Linux based distributions where GNOME is
>>> considered the primary desktop rather than KDE ? What is they layout
>>> when KDE is the primary desktop ?
>>
>> SUSE organizes as /usr/lib/qt3 /usr/lib/qt4, etc
>
> where are the include files on SUSE ?
In /usr/include, which I believe is inconsistent, and wrong.
> Why is your layout better than the SUSE one ? What problems does it
> solve that their layout doesn't ?
The layout proposed here follows the layout established by the Perl ARC Case
PSARC/1999/192.
I don't know if it's "better" than Linux, I don't particularily consider Linux
a
benchmark for adjudicating the soundness of directory layouts, and I prefer
following established precedents which have been sanctioned and approved by the
ARCs.
>> It can't be Committed because [1] it doesn't really implement any
>> known Industry standard,
>
> That isn't the definition of committed.
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/interface-taxonomy/
It appears to be one of the attributes to be taken into consideration when
assigning a Committed stability level to an Interface, or a group of
Interfaces.
Given that QT does not implement a known Industry Standard, that's strike one
against Committed.
> > and [2] we don't control QT's Interface Stability level.
>
> Then what was all that text above about ? It can be Committed if the
> project team believes that the upstream behaves in a manner suitable.
> The text you provided indicates you do think that.
Considering the ABI Micro
Release Stability guarantee provided by Trolltech ASA, a
"Committed" Interface Stability Classification would have been
appropriate.
The project team does not believe that, nor do the ARC Case Documents imply
that
the project team believes that. The ARC Case documents clearly states that this
ABI stability guarantee is provided by Trolltech, and this guarantee only
applies to Micro releases.
Is an interface stability guarantee which is effective only for Micro releases
appropriate for "Committed" ? I do not believe that it is. We are saying that
"QT 4.4.1 will be ABI and API compatible with 4.4.3, but not with 4.5.0".
This does not qualify for "Committed". That's strike two against Committed.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
