On 6/8/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > As for FHS compliance, it's probably not. But neither is Qt. > > The one-directory install of Qt (in /opt/qtX.XX for BLFS) is > compliant with the FHS (other than we don't use /etc/opt/qt). > And I thought the previous /usr install was also FHS compliant > (noted the problems you describe with $QTDIR). > > I suppose what I'd like to see is a method that the TrollTech > folks recommend, and is compliant with the FHS. Isn't the /opt > method compliant with those two stipulations? > > Regardless, I realize folks want stuff in /usr. But shouldn't > the book mention that the /usr method does not conform with > the FHS, but we provide these instructions as a courtesy?
I see what you mean. Yeah, the /usr method isn't exactly FHS compliant or recommended by Qt. Here's the only documentation I could find on a quick breeze through their website: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.1/install-x11.html It says it will install to /usr/local/Trolltech/Qt-4.1.5 by default and you can change this with -prefix. Doesn't say anything about playing with the other switches. So, the /opt style is definitely conforms to that and the FHS. As for QTDIR=/usr/share/qt, I checked out their tutorial here: http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/tutorial1-01.html and played with qmake. It creates a Makefile that adds -I$(QTDIR)/include. It also expects to find the mkspecs directory in $(QTDIR), which it wouldn't before with QTDIR=/usr. So, I think this is the right thing to do if you want the /usr style install. So, if I add a blurb that the /usr style is not the Qt recommended way, is this OK? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
