[Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

[André Pönitz]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:06:33PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 30 de outubro de 2012 23.52.08, André Pönitz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > 5) executable split between end-user applications and indirect
> > > tooling The most controversial proposal so far is to split the
> > > binaries into two groups: one that gets installed to
> > > PREFIX/bin, containing the executables for applications run
> > > directly by the user and which retain backwards compatibility
> > > of purpose, and one that gets installed to ARCHDATADIR/bin
> > > that contains the tools that users generally do not run
> > > directly and which are specific to a particular build of Qt.
> > > Please note that, in the current implementation, like in #4
> > > above, most people on this list will not see a change, as it
> > > applies to Unix builds that require make install *only*.
> > > 
> > > This proposal has met with vehement opposition and I'd like to
> > > hear why.
> > 
> > "There is no clear cut between applications directly run by the
> > users and those that are generally not run directly. In some
> > cases it is clear, in some others it depends on the actual
> > user's habits, and no matter where a cut is made for someone it
> > will be wrong."
> 
> And if we define the cut as the ones that have compatibility of
> purpose and output, versus the ones that don't?

This sounds not overly wrong as it would reduce some possibly
needless duplication and reduction in diskspace.

On the other hand, I am not really sure it would be worthwhile.
On the machine in front of me I have e.g. /usr/bin/designer-qt4
(symlinked via /etc/alternatives/designer and /usr/bin/designer)
with 422584 bytes, assistant with 965092 etc. So the total "shared"
set is in the single digit MB range per installed version of Qt
(minus 1). 

Is this really worth the hassle compared to putting everything
into the same sandbox?

Andre'