[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions

Stephen Kelly 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 mailing list