[Development] Co-installation & library naming rules

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:45:27 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > not all people have agreed on it. the linux distro centric camp (which
> > has a disproportionate representation in this channel) has agreed on it.
> > which is a very good indication that they should, indeed, have a common
> > standard. *their* standard. which reaches way beyond qt.
> 
> Yes, in an ideal world the FHS would solve this. But unfortunately the reality 
> of the matter is that this just isn't going to be solved there.
>
everyone knows that the FHS is not going to move. i'm arguing that those who are
dealing with it should build upon it, which is the distributors.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:06:47AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2012 11.45.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > Indeed. But their output affects a lot of people, including the majority
> > > of  future Qt contributors,
> > >
> > that's not relevant, because if those 20 people do a good job, the
> > millions using the packages will not be bothered by this topic.
> 
> You're assuming that they will all do the *same* good job.
>
that's a rather reasonable assumption. that's why they are here. i don't
see why they should be able to compel the qt project to do something
they apparently all want, but be incapable of agreeing on a standard
under the qt project's umbrella and implementing it only in their own
repos.

> The other thing is, we still need to rename the libraries. Otherwise, we can't 
> install both sets of *.so files to /usr/lib.
> 
that's simply not a relevant concern. production libraries can be
co-installed just fine. and development libraries can live in their
respective subfolders and be found via the respective -L options (which
come out of pkg-config - which is why i'm _considering_ making the .pc
files co-installable out of the box).