[Development] [Releasing] brown paper bag issue in Qt 5.6.1 packages

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Wed Jun 22 17:32:17 CEST 2016

On quarta-feira, 22 de junho de 2016 06:48:39 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> >Also: update MODULE_VERSION qtdeclarative/.qmake.conf. It MUST be different
> > from the original 5.6.1 version.
> Why? 

So that when someone reports an issue, we can tell from the sources whether it 
included the fix or not.

> It’s one patch for a bug that can hit quite some of our users, otherwise
> everything is identical. 

Hence updating only qtdeclarative's version number, not everything else.
> Let’s for a second assume, we had not released an update, but added this to
> the known issues page and released 5.6.2 some time later this year. What
> would have happened is that all Linux distributions would have picked up
> that one patch, added it to their packages, and recompiled 5.6.1. The .so
> version number inside the distributions would still be 5.6.1, and you
> wouldn’t know the difference looking from the outside. The only thing that
> changes when the Linux distributions do such an update is the version
> number of the package, not of the .so’s inside.

Exactly. The .so don't need to have their number changed, but the package 
does. So we need to update .qmake.conf. Whether that updates the .so file names 
or not is irrelevant.

MODULE_VERSION = will produce .so.5.6.1
> We basically do the same here. Yes, we can argue whether the tag should be
> 5.6.1-1 or, but it doesn’t change the fact that I don’t really see
> a problem in keeping the .so version for this case.
Nor I.

So let's change the tag and the MODULE_VERSION. It's important that if I ask a 
user, they can check their source code and see which one of the sources they 
downloaded, after they removed the original .tar.gz file.

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

More information about the Development mailing list