[Development] New proposal for the tool naming

André Pönitz andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon Oct 22 21:21:17 CEST 2012

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:08:38AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 22 de outubro de 2012 15.45.56, Oswald
> Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:16:14PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Note: this applies to the *tools* only. The library naming and
> > > installation paths for plugins and QML files has remained
> > > uncontested so far, so we appear to have a consensus.
> > 
> > only if you conveniently ignore my two (or three?) mails saying
> > the exact opposite. the problem with renaming the libraries is
> > the same as with tools: project files not based on qmake need to
> > be adjusted.
> Indeed, but I contest that those changes are minor, expected and
> understandable. The vast majority of the users are probably using
> either qmake or cmake (99%?) and those are taken care of already.

That would leave Visual Studio at less than 1%, which is certainly
not in sync with any survey I've seen during the last ten years.

> I beg to differ. Let's take the example of a buildsystem that is
> trying to retain source compatibility (thus, we're excluding cmake
> and, for many things, qmake too [think of QT += widgets
> print-support]). We can group them in two buckets:
> A) those that run those tools without absolute paths B) those that
> run them with absolute paths
> How do they find the absolute path? The only answer is "qmake
> -query QT_INSTALL_BINS".

C) It's hard coded. Having company policies saying "All sources
have to be on a X:\Project 0815\Sources, and Q:\ is subst'ed 
to a place with a Qt installation we want you to use today"
is more common than either of us may wish for...


More information about the Development mailing list