[Development] UDS feedback

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com
Mon May 14 12:51:08 CEST 2012


----- Original Message -----
> On Saturday 12 May 2012 22:01:09 Sergio Ahumada Navea wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a
> > > separate
> > > download from Nokia website. Ubuntu packages creator and Qt. This
> > > could cause confusion as to which to choose. I think the decision
> > > made
> > > here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains
> > > much
> > > more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains
> > > required
> > > for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and
> > > toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the
> > > definitive
> > > place to download creator and qt.
> > 
> > Are you saying that I'll have to download Qt 5 for my Fedora 17
> > from an
> > Ubuntu repository ? I think I didn't understand this point.
> 
> I beleive this was only related to Ubuntu user,
> But you would have the same "problem" with every distribution. On
> Fedora, one
> would typically download Qt from a fedora repository.
> Each linux distribution will do its own package.

Yep, for Fedora from Fedora repo. The thing is - Qt SDK is really 
different beast - it's the whole stack to develop apps for Nokia 
devices. But it would be nice, if you will be able to download the
platforms bits and use it for distribution tools already packaged.
This can help in situation you have standalone Qt Creator, Qt SDK,
Necessitas, would be great to have BB10 SDK outside Eclipse... 
 
> > 
> > > 2. Rename our qt5 tool binaries - the binary names of moc, uic,
> > > qmake
> > > conflict in qt3 and qt4. Now with qt5, we will have another
> > > conflict.
> > > Is it possible to rename all our tool binaries to be moc5,
> > > qmake5? Are
> > > Qt4 qmake and Qt5 qmake completely compatible (I think not).
> > > Ossi,
> > > comments?
> > 
> > Why not to rename qmake (from Qt3 and Qt4) as qmake-qt3 and
> > qmake-qt4
> > respectively in the distribution ?
> 
> That is not a bad idea.
> But this is leaving the problem to the distributions. Then all the
> distributions will have to solve this problem again. And they might
> use
> different ways, leading in inconsistencies accross distributions.
> We probably would like to avoid fragmentation.

We do it in distribution, we have qmake and qmake-qt4. But it's nasty
workaround, some projects do not count with qmake-qt4, sometimes the
heurestics to find suitable qmake fails, etc...

Jaroslav 

> 
> --
> Olivier
> 
> Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> 



More information about the Development mailing list