[Development] Co-installation & library naming rules

Marcus D. Hanwell marcus.hanwell at kitware.com
Thu Oct 11 18:00:41 CEST 2012

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
<oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> wrote:
> 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.

Why would forcing multiple implementations in different repos be
better than agreeing upon and implementing this in the upstream repo?
If there is no cooperation then yes distro packagers need to come up
with their own solutions, and can work to coordinate this across

If there is a general agreement that this is needed then it would seem
that doing this in the context of the Qt project is the ideal
solution. This would also reduce the amount of work required as there
is already an agreed upon place to collaborate (the Qt project), and
as we all get our source from the Qt project there is minimal
opportunity for solutions to diverge.


More information about the Development mailing list