[Development] Enginio build artifacts and naming conventions

Knoll Lars Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Thu Jun 5 09:06:57 CEST 2014

On 05/06/14 00:22, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:

>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
>> decoupled to give add-ons some freedom to work with their version
>> 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
>we need a source version ("Qt5") and a binary version ("so.5").

Ok, I remembered that you were advocating to couple the two together.
Looks like I remembered wrongly :)
>But when it went through review, we decided that we should instead make
>Qt6-safe and encoded the module's $$MAJOR_VERSION.
>We should probably just insert QtCore's major version in every module.

Agreed. Let’s either hardcode the “5” or use QtCore’s major version if
that’s not too hard to do. That should solve the whole problem.


More information about the Development mailing list