[Development] New proposal for the tool naming

[Thiago Macieira]

On terça-feira, 23 de outubro de 2012 10.42.58, BRM wrote:
> > In any case, "-qt5" may not mean "latest", but simply
> > "default 5.x version".
> > The implementation will decide what that means.
> 
> How is this any better then updating LSB/FHS with guidelines on how to
> properly install Qt on a Unix/Linux system? Is it not easier to simply say
> install to /usr/share/qt-5.0.0.0 with a symlink to /usr/share/qt5, and
> require that distro specific tools manage symlinks to qmake/etc in the
> path? Or even having /usr/share/qt in the path and simply manage a symlink
> to it?

First of all, because we won't be able to get LSB/FHS to update for us. It 
just won't happen. And even if we did get that, note that distributions are 
even more strict than LSB/FHS, since most of them don't use /opt either.

So this solution is better than updating because it's achievable. Possible is 
better than impossible.

Second, because updating LSB/FHS isn't enough either. The user still needs to 
find the Qt 5 qmake somewhere to get started. Updating the documentation to 
list the full path is worse than updating it to add a "-qt5" argument.

Managing a symlink in /usr/bin is not an acceptable solution because that 
requires administrator permissions and it breaks the ability to easily switch 
between Qt 4 and Qt 5.

> KISS is a very good principle, and I don't see it being applied in this
> discussion. Rather we are getting lots of "if we do this we solve this, but
> then if we do that we solve that"; and in all cases it is will cause
> headaches all around except for a few people.

I think we are keeping it simple. The current proposal is the simplest that 
still works.

If you can come up with something even simpler, I'll gladly accept it. The 
stuff you proposed before isn't acceptable because I shot holes through them.


> > If the option is required in one platform and does not cause anything but
> > a
> > minor inconvenience on others, why not document it?
> 
> So then will Qmake on Windows/Mac complain about the "-qt5" argument? Or
> simply drop it?

Drop it.

-- 
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/20121023/4f0cc9b7/attachment.sig>