[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions
Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Wed Jun 4 11:41:53 CEST 2014
On 04/06/14 11:00, "Stephen Kelly" <stephen.kelly at kdab.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:08:12 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > The library filenames for Enginio do not have a version in their
>> > at all, as was discussed and actioned for all modules before Qt 5.0.
>> > that a mistake, or is this stuff a free-for-all for all new modules?
>> The source version number is only required once you break source
>> compatibility, so it's technically not required now.
>The '5' makes sense because it is 'part of Qt5'. It is part of the
>> However, I question why we have a Qt module that doesn't have "Qt" in
>So far, we know it is deliberate. We don't know if it was a mistake, and
>don't know if naming things is a free-for-all.
>Lars: Can you answer? Is there a way to name include directories and
>or is it a free-for-all? Can future modules be expected to follow any
>conventions, or is it expected that they can be named anything?
I think we should keep the Qt5 in the library names. Consistency is a good
thing. Making it completely free makes it harder to recognise what’s part
of Qt and what isn’t.
So IMO we should try to see how we can fix this going forward.
More information about the Development