[Development] Alternative Proposal

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Sat Oct 20 01:24:06 CEST 2012

On sábado, 20 de outubro de 2012 08.38.20, Lorn Potter wrote:
> > The distros *will* apply renaming. And without our help, they may
> > introduce
> > bugs and they will be definitely deviating from the documented way.
> Then that's their problem, not qt-projects.

I don't see it that way and I don't think our users will think it that way 
either. If they follow the documentation from qt-project.org/doc and it 
doesn't work, they'll blame us, not the middle-man.

> This is only one platform that this effects, and only under certain
> conditions.

It's technically all Unix apart from Mac OS X, even though we seem to care 
very little about any of them besides Linux. And it's the condition that most 
people will see Qt installed at, since the distributions are probably our 
largest vehicle of distribution. (True, though, the overwhelming majority 
won't be developers)

> We didn't need to rename commands going from qt2 ->qt3, nor from qt3 ->qt4.

Qt 2 had no qmake. It still used tmake. I don't remember how distros dealt 
with moc's name. As for the library name, it changed from libqt.so to libqt-

>From qt3 to qt4, there was definitely trouble. That's why qmake-qt3 and qmake-
qt4 exist today, despite being largely ignored by the upstream developers 
(us). Every now and then, someone comes into the #qt channel and says their 
application can't compile because QApplication wasn't found. When we look at 
the output, we see:

So don't tell me that we didn't need to rename. We needed to, we just failed 
to do it.

> Personally I don't think there is a problem. With the name change comes
> heaps of problems on the other platforms. Less problems wins.
> Personally I think it's a big waste of time, and too big of change to be
> done now. This feature should have to wait until qt 6.

Only if we scrap Qt 5 now and start working on Qt 6. I still have those 
container changes applied to my branch, you know :-)

> First and foremost, where's the bug reports from linux distros that need
> this change, or is the problem made up?

Go back to the beginning of the discussion. I linked to a bug report by the 
Fedora packagers.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20121019/474f280e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Development mailing list