[Development] Qt 6 co-installability with Qt 5
joerg.bornemann at qt.io
Wed Feb 17 09:32:13 CET 2021
On 2/16/21 5:36 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> We're simply asking that we make official what is already done everywhere.
Yes, and that's all good, and with
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/334054 we will have an
I will also add a documentation page in the vicinity of
The only thing we're still arguing about is how to call the tools in the
To mention that the distro-provided qmake might be called qmake6 can
(and should) also be done. But to change qmake to qmake6 everywhere in
the docs is as consistent as not doing anything - as long as we don't
rename the tools.
Python is brought up a lot as the common example for having multiple
versions installed (though that will be history soonish as python 2
support fades out). If I look at its documentation
https://docs.python.org/3/using/cmdline.html there's *one* mention of
python3, buried in the description of the -X option. Everything else is
> qmake-based applications that support more than one Qt major version are rare.
> Granted, they are more common during the transition period, but since Qt
> Company's decision this time to accelerate transition from 5 to 6, it will be
> less of an impact this time around. Either way, users need to know whether the
> application has been ported to Qt 6 in the first place and the easiest is for
> the authors / maintainers to document that you should use "qmake6 ".
$ cat INSTALL
Prerequisites to build AwesomeApp:
- Qt x.y.z
- libotherstuff a.b.c
Yes, I see the problem but I still doubt its severity.
Renaming just the three tools you mentioned would be inconsistent.
Renaming all tools is too late.
On 2/17/21 12:47 AM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Kai: we the maintainers have been asking for the right solution since
the Qt3 to Qt4 switch.
Obviously not with enough fervor to convince people and in the case of
Qt6 muuuuch too late in the release process.
More information about the Development