[Development] New proposal for the tool naming

[Stephen Kelly]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:56:05 Konstantin Ritt wrote:
> >> > Why not use a tool of a new name? Why overload the meaning and
> >> > responsiblity of qmake?
> > 
> > <snip>
> > If the new tool is to be installed to /usr/bin/qmake and the Qt 4 qmake is
> > today at /usr/bin/qmake, packagers have to change everything in their Qt 4
> > packages or they will conflict and not be coinstallable. I thought that
> > was
> > the main reason for this whole thing. If you covered that in your initial
> > email, I missed it.
> 
> The packagers have to change the only Qt4 qmake's name/path and

The whole point of this proposal used to be to make it not necessary for 
distros to patch Qt. 

This proposal as you state is requires everyone to patch Qt 4 even more 
(Right?). 

This is exactly why this point should have been part of the initial proposal: 
If we don't care about distros patching Qt 4 anymore - only Qt 5 - that is a 
particular goal, but I haven't seen it stated like that anywhere. 

I didn't know that was the goal in particular of this new proposal. 

Thanks,

-- 
Stephen Kelly <stephen.kelly at kdab.com> | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
** Qt Developer Conference: http://qtconference.kdab.com/ **
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20121021/dabc7736/attachment.sig>