On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:24:37PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote: > (1) It seems that there is an agreement on the naming of the libraries and > pkg-config files. > not really. i'm not as strongly opposed to it as to renaming the tools, but i think renaming the libraries is mostly counterproductive, too: - the change is linux-only. on mac it simply cannot be done (in the framework case) and on windows it is already this way. the latter is rather ugly, as mentioned before. - it is entirely unnecessary for deployment, as shared object versioning perfectly supports co-installed major versions - it is sort-of unnecessary for development, as -I & -L can be used to specify which libraries to build against
i'm considering renaming the pkg-config files, as they target specifically linux and are the official entry point for the last item above. it's far from decided, though. > In short: We find that there is no _need_ to rename the tools and that > we can solve the problem of co-installation using versioned > directories. > correct. i find andre's "implementation" more precise. your "proposal" is basically a summary of the status quo amongst linux distros. regards _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
