[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Thu Jun 5 00:22:47 CEST 2014

Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 11:12:11, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> IMO it’s probably a mistake to bind the major so version number to the
> number after Qt. There was a reason why Thiago wanted this, but I don’t
> quite remember why.
> IMO it would be better to have Qt5 in the lib name as an indication that
> this is part of Qt 5. And the .so versions for add-ons should be somewhat
> decoupled to give add-ons some freedom to work with their version numbers
> and maybe even introduce a new major .so version if required.

I didn't want Qt$MAJOR in the name. When I wrote the code, I had hardcoded the 
"5", so we could have got libQt5Enginio.so.1. In fact, that is what we need: 
we need a source version ("Qt5") and a binary version ("so.5").

But when it went through review, we decided that we should instead make it 
Qt6-safe and encoded the module's $$MAJOR_VERSION.

We should probably just insert QtCore's major version in every module.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Development mailing list