[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions
stephen.kelly at kdab.com
Wed Jun 4 11:55:36 CEST 2014
On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 09:41:53 you wrote:
> 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.
I agree. I don't know how it can be ensured though. The current Enginio name
went through several people. The process let this through, so there is
probably a problem in the process?
Another issue is whether to fix Enginio. Apparently it does things 'different'
because it was desired to have a disparate release schedule and version
Nothing appeared on this mailing list about doing that for this particular
case with Enginio. I think that should have been discussed here as it sets
Nevertheless, because Enginio uses a disparate scheme, that means that this
situation can be 'fixed' by bumping the major version number, fixing the
library name and the include directory name.
What do you think?
Join us at Qt Developer Days 2014 in Berlin! - https://devdays.kdab.com
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
More information about the Development