On sexta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2012 13.07.16, Stephen Kelly wrote: > On Friday, September 21, 2012 16:47:11 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > This is long, so I'll give you my recommendation first. If you agree with > > me, you don't have to read the rest. If you disagree, you have to read my > > arguments. > > It seems like the this thread and the 'Qt 5 file hierarchy' are really part > of the same proposal? It also seems like the proposal is updated a bit (eg > for Mac). Can you post a combined update if so, so that we can ask distros > what they think? > > We should find out if the proposal is 'good' to downstreams so that we can > start moving on it.
I've already contacted several downstreams: Sune for Debian, Will for
OpenSUSE, Raphael for FreeBSD; the Fedora people were the originators of the
bug report and have posted here.
All have given their +1 to the proposal.
All the Linux distros said that they will apply fixes to our build if we don't
do it. Raphael, on the other hand, says that it doesn't matter for him, but it
doesn't hinder either and he thinks it's cleaner this way.
Sune also said that he would rather we *keep* the number at the end of the
soname. As to whether we should reset to 1 or keep it at 5, Lars says he would
rather we keep at 5, so no one gets ideas about making a binary-incompatible
Qt 5 release.
The only pending question is whether it should be libQt5Core or libQtCore5. To
avoid libQtQuick5 (for Qt Quick 2) and libQtV85, I'd rather put the number
next to Qt.
I'll post an updated text summarising the *decision*.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
