On 12/10/12 09:18, Thiago Macieira wrote: > The only tools that need renaming are the tools that are run by users but are > tied to a specific library version. That's basically qmake. > > If we had a generic build tool that worked with multiple Qt versions (like > cmake), we wouldn't need to do it. Since our tool hardcodes Qt specifics and > is > not backwards compatible with older versions, we need to. That was our > decision.
So why the arbitrary distinction of major version then? I can trivially produce source-incompatible builds of Qt from the source sources. Are we really going to guarantee that you'd never need more than one minor version of a specific major Qt installed at the same time? I don't see this as any different to a tool like the compiler. What I run in 99% of cases is gcc and the distro has decided which version that should be. For installing multiple versions, I can use the "complete" name (arch-platform-etc-version-gcc) or set my PATH to where that version's actual binaries are and continue to use gcc. -- Link _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
