[Interest] Qt Maintenance Tool vs Online Installer

[Koehne Kai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason H [mailto:scorp1us at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:00 PM
> To: Koehne Kai; Alan Ezust; qt-interest mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Maintenance Tool vs Online Installer
> 
> Online installer stalls for whatever reason. The offline installer always works,
> and can be passed around between machines
> 
> 
> I think you miss my point. I want:
> /opt/qt/5.2.0/
> /opt/qt/5.2.1/
> 
> /opt/qt/maintenancetool
> One maint tool to rule them all.

Well, you can. But you have to use the online installer for that. The offline installer just ships one version, and comes with it's own Qt Creator / MaintenanceTool.

> 
> I'm not sure the way its done now makes any sense with the point you make,
> as I would get:
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.0/
> 
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.0/maintencetool
> /opt/Qt5.2.1/5.2.1/
> 
> /opt/Qt5.2.1/5.2.1/maintencetool
> 
> Which I think we both agree is wrong.

No, if you install two different offline installers side by side you'll get.

/opt/Qt5.2.0/MaintenanceTool
/opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.0/gcc_64/...
/opt/Qt5.2.0/Tools/QtCreator/...
/opt/Qt5.2.0/...

/opt/Qt5.2.1/MaintenanceTool
/opt/Qt5.2.1/5.2.1/gcc_64/...
/opt/Qt5.2.1/Tools/QtCreator/...
/opt/Qt5.2.1/...

> Really, I think the default should change to be /opt/Qt -- without a version.

We could do that, but that would allow anyone to just install one version of Qt.

> And the offline installer should be able to handle my desired scenario, by
> simply replacing the maintence tool in /opt/qt and incorporating any prior Qt
> versions found in /opt/qt

Well, I agree that would be nice. But it also opens up a can of worms ... Maybe you can file a suggestion at bugreports.qt-project.org, so that other people on the IFW can chime in?

As I wrote already, the preferred way of having multiple Qt versions installed is the online installer.


Regards

Kai

> Of course I am assuming that after continued releases, we would eventually
> have:
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.0/
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.1/
> 
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.2.2/
> 
> /opt/Qt5.2.0/5.3.0/
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes little sense to me. I would also be fine with a /opt/Qt5/5.3.0/ or
> /opt/Qt5/3.0/
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne at digia.com>
> To: "scorp1us at yahoo.com" <scorp1us at yahoo.com>; Alan Ezust
> <alan.ezust at gmail.com>; qt-interest mailing list <interest at qt-project.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:47 AM
> Subject: RE: [Interest] Qt Maintenance Tool vs Online Installer
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: scorp1us at yahoo.com [mailto:scorp1us at yahoo.com]
> >
> > I've complained about the offline installer path too. I want stuff in a qt
> > directory, for me, under opt. But if you cage the path to be opt/qt the first
> > install does what I want and I get opt/qt/5.2.0 so then I install 5.2.1, set the
> > path as opt/qt and it complains that there I s already a qt there. Without
> the
> > check it would do what I want and give me opt/qt/5.2.1.
> 
> Well, it would also probably mess up your 5.2.0 installation. One
> installation/maintenance tool is supposed to manage every package under its
> directory, and will also e.g. nuke the complete directory when uninstalled.
> 
> I'm afraid the installer isn't really up to what you want :(
> 
> > Maybe the maintenance too sould get its own directory under qt? Seems
> > reasonable?
> 
> That wouldn't change the core of the problem. Every installer/maintenance
> tool is a sort of package manager, and it's just not a good idea to let multiple
> package managers manage the same packages ...
> 
> Just out of interest, is there a specific reason you don't want to use one
> online installer managing all Qt versions?
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Kai
>