[Development] Summary of renaming changes

André Pönitz andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Fri Oct 19 21:34:11 CEST 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:32:43PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-19, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> 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 is an argument for you
> > guys finally agreeing on something and actually sticking to it, not
> > upstream forcing this change on *all* users.
> Assuming distro1 needs change A and B to be applied to be in line with
> distro policies, distro2 needs change B and C, and distro 3 needs change
> D and E, and all distros want to do as little changes to upstream as
> possible... 
> I guess distros and stuff could do a permanent fork thingie, but do we,
> as in Qt Project actually want to encourage that? Like go-oo.org? like
> eglibc? like ...
> Really. I really want, both as a Qt contributor and a Qt packager to
> ship a pristine Qt. Please help me make it happen.

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".

In any case, you as packager are in a very specific situation. There
are only a few of you, and I understand you do carry a burden, and
I am not opposed to the idea of reducing that burden, if reasonably

Demanding to be relieved from that burden is one thing. Demanding to
use an approach that will break thousands of other projects is a
different one. It is unreasonable.


More information about the Development mailing list