[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions

[Stephen Kelly]

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 
scheme. 

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 
precedent.

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?

Thanks,

-- 
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