On 21/10/2012 18:42, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Please read Thiago's latest proposal (see thread 'New proposal for tools
> naming'). It proposes something very similar to what you are asking for here.
Yeah seen the different thread too late. :-/
The latest proposal looks very good to me!
Cheers,
Jö
On 19.10.2012 19:26, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> no. it would be "if you compiled Qt yourself or if you downloaded the
> built editions from digia, write qmake to build things. if you gotten
> from your linux distribution write probably
> qmake5,
Developers tend to be computer savvy people, they should
Hi Joerg,
On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Bornemann Joerg wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
>>> This *is* the problem of Linux distributions. FHS doesn't cover this
>>> problem properly and this is the point where it should be fixed.
>>> You're making life harder for every platform - not only Linux - by
>
Hi Thiago,
> >This *is* the problem of Linux distributions. FHS doesn't cover this
> > problem properly and this is the point where it should be fixed.
> >You're making life harder for every platform - not only Linux - by
> > fixing their problem.
>
> You may argue that case, but they'll
On sábado, 20 de outubro de 2012 09.53.24, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> As you mentioned in another message, it would be great if these paths
> were discoverable, either with a qt5-config tool or (better, IMHO) with
> a qt5.pc pkg-config file defining these variables, so that one could do:
>
> $ pkg-c
On 10/20/2012 01:06 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Here's we might do then:
>
> QT_INSTALL_BINS - remains as it is, points to (on distros) /usr/lib/qt5/bin,
> contains unrenamed executables.
>
> QT_INSTALL_SYSTEM_BINS - points to /usr/bin and contains qmake5 (at least).
> As
> I said, I don't ca
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 21.55.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > My only argument is that this directory of "old names" is not very useful.
> > Since we can't guarantee it will be on $PATH, we need to change all of our
> > documentation. So it serves only for us "old timers" who have lots of
>
On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 21.34.11, André Pönitz wrote:
>> The proposal to put all unrenamed binaries in a directory and set up
>> *5 links in /usr/bin to those unmodified binaries was on the table.
>>
>> I haven't seen any rea
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 21.34.11, André Pönitz wrote:
> The proposal to put all unrenamed binaries in a directory and set up
> *5 links in /usr/bin to those unmodified binaries was on the table.
>
> I haven't seen any reasoning that this is unusable as "proper solution".
It is a solu
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 08:02:46PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-19, André Pönitz wrote:
> >> Really. I really want, both as a Qt contributor and a Qt packager to
> >> ship a pristine Qt. Please help me make it happen.
>
> > Demanding to be relieved from that burden is one thing. Demand
On 2012-10-19, André Pönitz wrote:
>> Really. I really want, both as a Qt contributor and a Qt packager to
>> ship a pristine Qt. Please help me make it happen.
> Demanding to be relieved from that burden is one thing. Demanding to
> use an approach that will break thousands of other projects is
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:32:43PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-19, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >> I have, as a distributor, frequently gotten 'hate' in #qt for providing
> >> switchable qmakes.
> >>
> > using (debian style) altenatives for that is pretty stupid.
>
> I guess that prov
On 19/10/12 19:27, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> I started -2'ing the changes, based on the outcome of a cost/benefit
> "analysis":
thank you.
--
Lorn Potter
Senior Software Engineer, QtSensors/QtSensorGestures/QtSystemInfo
___
Development mailing list
Dev
On 2012-10-19, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> I have, as a distributor, frequently gotten 'hate' in #qt for providing
>> switchable qmakes.
>>
> using (debian style) altenatives for that is pretty stupid.
I guess that proves my point quite good...
> as i've already written about three times, this
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 07.31.21, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > qdbusxml2cpp -> qdbusxml2cpp5
> > qdbuscpp2xml -> qdbuscpp2xml5
>
> Do we need to rename the dbus tools? They are compatible afaik.
Slightly... There's one change, which is the change on the annotations from
"com.t
On 2012-10-19, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> User support could then be:
>
> "write qmake5 to build Qt 5 things"
no. it would be "if you compiled Qt yourself or if you downloaded the
built editions from digia, write qmake to build things. if you gotten
from your linux distribution write probably
qma
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 08.52.47, Ziller Eike wrote:
> > External tooling will need to deal with the new names.
>
> I don't see why.
> It's possible to ask qmake for the path where the other binaries, headers,
> examples, and a lot of other stuff are supposed to be: "qmake -query". I
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 09.27.42, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> - The "problem" only exists on Linux
>* There are existing, working solutions to the "problem" there
>* There are skilled people (distro packagers) there perfectly
> capable of handling the "problem"
>* The
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 08.47.08, Ziller Eike wrote:
> Another thing that comes to my mind, that will break when renaming tools,
> instead of installing links in paths like "/usr/bin" and keeping the the
> tools unrenamed in specific version directories:
>
> At the moment one can def
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 07.45.15, Koehne Kai wrote:
> I guess the reason is that there's already a qmlviewer - the Qt 4 one. If we
> also go with qmlscene ->qml2viewer, we'd have
>
> qmlviewer -> qt4
> qml1viewer -> Qt 5, Qt Quick 1
> qml2viewer -> Qt 5, Qt Quick 2
>
> Not exactly
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 07.09.40, Koehne Kai wrote:
> So, _if_ we already rename half of the tools I don't see why qmlplugindump +
> qmlviewer should be the exception. Same goes for qmlviewer. Designer is a
> bit different since I guess 90% of the people just use it with stock
> compo
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 11.54.36, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> On 18/10/2012 19:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Let me be very clear: the distributions aren't fixing the distribution's
> > problem. They'd be fixing *ours*.
>
> Putting every binary into one directory excludes installing di
On 19 October 2012 12:29, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:04AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2012-10-19, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>> > 3) Provide a script to switch, per user and maybe even per $PWD, what
>> > version of Qt /usr/bin/qmake should generate the makefiles
Sune Vuorela [nos...@vuorela.dk]
> I have, as a distributor, frequently gotten 'hate' in #qt for providing
> switchable qmakes.
> And from a 'user support' PoV, having to write "depending on what you
> have set as your default you can maybe write qmake, maybe you need to
> oither switch the defau
> as i've already written about three times, this is an argument for you
> guys finally agreeing on something and actually sticking to it, not
> upstream forcing this change on *all* users.
I fully agree.
Laszlo
___
Development mailing list
Development@
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:04AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-19, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> > 3) Provide a script to switch, per user and maybe even per $PWD, what
> > version of Qt /usr/bin/qmake should generate the makefiles for.
>
> I have, as a distributor, frequently gotten 'hat
On Thursday, 2012-10-18, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> I have another idea in mind for qmlviewer...
>
> You can configure your system so that double-clicking a .qml file opens it
> in qmlviewer. This would be a nice use case to suggest/support, because
> it's silly to be required to write a boilerplate
On 2012-10-19, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> 3) Provide a script to switch, per user and maybe even per $PWD, what
> version of Qt /usr/bin/qmake should generate the makefiles for.
I have, as a distributor, frequently gotten 'hate' in #qt for providing
switchable qmakes.
And from a 'user support' P
Sorvig Morten wrote:
> Knoll Lars wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal.
> > Let's see if we can get at least agreement on most of the changes
> > and then focus on the parts that are controversial.
>
> To me this looks like a case where there c
On 18/10/2012 19:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Let me be very clear: the distributions aren't fixing the distribution's
> problem. They'd be fixing *ours*.
Putting every binary into one directory excludes installing different
versions of one binary. Obviously the coinstallation problem is unsolve
On 10/19/2012 10:31 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Unfortunately qmake is bound to the Qt version and not backwards compatible.
> So if we want to make it possible to co-install Qt 5 with Qt 4, we have very
> little choice but to rename it.
This is not entirely true. Surely at any given time /usr/bin/q
Thiago Macieira:
> On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 06.07.34, Kalinowski Maurice wrote:
> > On Windows there is no global qmake or such to call and distinguish between
> > versions. Each Qt version will have to live in its own package, either made
> > by the binary distribution or self-compile
May I ask some stupid question: how many different qmake-s you're need
in your $PATH ?!
Maybe it's only me? - on Windows I do have a directory per Qt build,
on Linux I do have symlink /user/bin/qmake ->
/usr/opt/Qt/4.8/bin/qmake. And I never have a feeling I need few more
qmake-s around!
2012/10/
On 19 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 10.17.39, Lincoln Ramsay wrote:
>> On 19/10/12 01:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will
>>> happen:
>>>
>>> - bin:
>>
>>> The following tools
Another thing that comes to my mind, that will break when renaming tools,
instead of installing links in paths like "/usr/bin" and keeping the the tools
unrenamed in specific version directories:
At the moment one can define an "external tool" in Qt Creator.
Configuration of these external tools
> looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal. Let's see if
> we can get at least agreement on most of the changes and then focus on the
> parts that are controversial.
>
> Going through the list below, most of the changes will not affect anybody in a
> big way.
>
>
> On Oct
On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal. Let's see
>> if we can get at least agreement on most of the changes and then focus on
>> the parts that are cont
On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal. Let's see
> if we can get at least agreement on most of the changes and then focus on the
> parts that are controversial.
To me this looks like a case where there clearl
e: [Development] Summary of renaming changes
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>
> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will
> happen:
>
> - bin:
> The following tools have been renamed:
> q
Hi,
looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal. Let's see if
we can get at least agreement on most of the changes and then focus on the
parts that are controversial.
Going through the list below, most of the changes will not affect anybody in a
big way.
On Oct 18, 2012
ect: Re: [Development] Summary of renaming changes
>
> [...]
> So I'm going to recommend renaming qmlviewer and qmlplugindump back
> to the Qt
> 4 names and call them "applications". Distributions will not co-install both:
> one simply upgrades them and keeps *all*
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 06.07.34, Kalinowski Maurice wrote:
> On Windows there is no global qmake or such to call and distinguish between
> versions. Each Qt version will have to live in its own package, either made
> by the binary distribution or self-compiled. Hence that argument is
.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Summary of renaming changes
>
> On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 10.17.39, Lincoln Ramsay wrote:
> > On 19/10/12 01:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that
> > >
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 10.17.39, Lincoln Ramsay wrote:
> On 19/10/12 01:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will
> > happen:
> >
> > - bin:
>
> > The following tools have been renamed:
> So... You just don't care about th
On 19/10/12 02:23, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Thursday 18 October 2012 08:30:03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will
>> happen:
>>
>> - bin:
>> The following tools have been renamed:
>> qmake -> qmake5
>> moc -> mo
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 01.57.16, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:10:16PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 01.03.29, André Pönitz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > > lconv
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 01.44.18, André Pönitz wrote:
> > Creator needs *some* solution of some kind so that its Designer component
> > can work for Qt 4 and Qt 5.
>
> Why? _You_ call Widgets "done". Why do you suddenly care how people
> handle them?
"Done" still means people can des
On 19/10/12 01:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will happen:
>
> - bin:
> The following tools have been renamed:
So... You just don't care about the calls from myself and others to
leave the names alone instead install newly-named (ali
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:10:16PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 01.03.29, André Pönitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > lconvert-> lconvert5
> > > lrelease-> lrelease5
> > > lupdate -> lu
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:16:37AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > I would remove creator from this list as it's a different ""product""
> > and comes with its own versioning and release cycle -- are all of
> > those 100% compatible with Qt 4? (First thing that comes to mind is
> > that designer
On quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012 08.30.03, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> xmlpatterns -> xmlpatterns5
> xmlpatternsvalidator -> xmlpatternsvalidator5
I've changed my mind on those two and dropped the patches that dealt with
them.
Those two are end-user applications and retain ful
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 01.03.29, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > lconvert-> lconvert5
> > lrelease-> lrelease5
> > lupdate -> lupdate5
>
> Sorry, I don't get the joke.
Because it was no joke. It's
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> lconvert-> lconvert5
> lrelease-> lrelease5
> lupdate -> lupdate5
Sorry, I don't get the joke.
Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-projec
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 05:47:16PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 18 October 2012 16:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> > The following tools require more information:
> > qdoc: not renamed because the Qt 4 version was called "qdoc3"
> > qhelpgenerator, qcollectiongenerator, q
On 18.10.2012, at 18:47, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 18 October 2012 16:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> The following tools require more information:
>>qdoc: not renamed because the Qt 4 version was called "qdoc3"
>>qhelpgenerator, qcollectiongenerator, qhelpconverter: they a
On quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012 17.14.55, Jana Aurindam wrote:
> qmlviewer -> qml1viewer
> This should be just qmlviewer (as it was in Qt 4.8).. I dont see a reason
> for this renaming..
>
> [qml1plugindump had already been renamed]
> This should be reverted back to qmlplugindump .. (Same r
On quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012 17.47.16, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > The following are user applications and they have not and will not be
renamed:
> > qdbus
> > qdbusviewer
> > assistant
> > designer
> > linguist
> > creator
> > pix
On 18 October 2012 17:23, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Take the most recent example of python. They did not rename the executable.
> Some distribution renamed the new one to python3, some other (archlinux)
> renamed the old one python2.
> Let the distributions solve the distributor's problem.
With
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will happen:
- bin:
The following tools have been renamed:
qmake -> qmake5
moc -> moc5
uic -> uic5
rcc -> rcc5
qdbusxml2cpp -> qdbusxml2cpp5
qdbuscpp2xml -> qdbuscpp2xml5
lcon
On quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012 18.23.38, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> I agree with Ossi on this matter.
>
> I will add that i don't like to rename qmake to qmake5 because:
>
> One runs firefox, not firefox15.
Firefox is an end-user application. You upgrade it and you don't keep the
older ve
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:30:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will happen:
>
> - bin:
> The following tools have been renamed:
>
> qmlviewer -> qml1viewer
> [qml1plugindump had already been renamed]
>
> qmls
On 2012-10-18, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> The following are user applications and they have not and will not be
>> renamed:
>> qdbus
>> qdbusviewer
>> assistant
>> designer
>> linguist
>> creator
>> pixeltool
>
> I would remove creator from
On 18 October 2012 16:30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> The following tools require more information:
> qdoc: not renamed because the Qt 4 version was called "qdoc3"
> qhelpgenerator, qcollectiongenerator, qhelpconverter: they apparently
> keep backwards compatibility, so they
On Thursday 18 October 2012 08:30:03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will
> happen:
>
> - bin:
> The following tools have been renamed:
> qmake -> qmake5
> moc -> moc5
> uic -> uic5
> rcc
After all of my patches are integrated, here are the changes that will happen:
- bin:
The following tools have been renamed:
qmake -> qmake5
moc -> moc5
uic -> uic5
rcc -> rcc5
qdbusxml2cpp -> qdbusxml2cpp5
qdbus
65 matches
Mail list logo
