[Development] Co-installation & executable naming rules

Lincoln Ramsay a1291762 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 01:07:10 CEST 2012

On 08/10/12 22:58, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Now this has some ugly implications, everyone will have to change the way they
> develop with Qt 5. In this context we have another interesting artifact:
> People who have been developing Qt for a long time as part of company efforts
> such as Trolltech, Nokia or now Digia will know that by now pretty much every
> developer has their own set of shell scripts to deal with multiple
> simultaneously installed Qt versions. We've had a few attempts at
> consolidating these efforts, with varying success (devtools / qset). Now one
> thing we came up with in our local discussion here is that maybe it's time to
> bring this idea forward and use it to solve the "uglyness" of co-installation
> in production environments:
> We could have a tool (let's call it just "qt") that makes choosing between
> different versions/installations of Qt easier. The tool should read and write
> the existing Qt Creator Qt version registry (so that everything is always in
> sync). It could allow for forwarding calls to executables (qt --4 qmake ->
> call qt4's qmake; qt --6 qmake -> call qt6's qmake, same for moc, uic,
> designer, etc.).

I hope this is in addition to putting the binaries in a versioned 
directory with the _same names_ as they have always had?

I've worked with multiple simultaneous builds for years, covering 
multiple major versions and the only thing that kept things sane was 
setting up the environment per-shell. Keeping track of the different 
configure options required through those versions was bad enough. 
Tracking different binary names across different builds would be 
terrible (not to mention making re-use of command history really painful).


More information about the Development mailing list