The more I read the various related threads, the more I think if qt-project is 
to do anything it should be to define to LSB/FHS how to configure Qt. I don't 
necessarily see consensus; but I do see a lot of questions that have gone 
unanswered. There seems to be a lot of objection to user tool name changes, for 
the sole benefit of only a portion of the community while having an adverse 
impact on the (perhaps) larger section of the community.


1. Qt should be installed to a self-contained directory, much like SDK and 
self-compile users. So Distributions should be discouraged from installing 
tools directly to /usr/bin, etc.
For example, install it all to /usr/share/qt5.0.0 just like the SDK.


2. Distributions should be encouraged to user their existing tooling to enable 
users to easily switch between different versions of Qt that the distribution 
supports; perhaps with support for users to register their own custom installs 
as well. This would be responsible for managing symlinks of all the 
user/developer visible tools that the distribution wants to put in the public 
paths (e.g. /usr/bin). This is very distribution specific - e.g. Gentoo would 
likely use their eselect tool much like they do for python, gcc, default 
editors and an host of other tools; while other distros would use tooling of 
their own style that meets their distribution needs in ways that are consistent 
with their distribution.


This would alleviate any need for qt-project to resolve the issue, while 
showing distributions how it ought to be done.
So instead of renaming tools, let's set a standard for how to install Qt in 
LSB/FHS; one that can apply to more than Qt if LSB/FHS desires it.
Any Unix system could adopt the same kind of standard set by LSB/FHS as a 
guideline as well.


Personally, I think renaming things is probably the wrong way to go about 
solving this issue as numerous tools and environments have qmake and other 
tools/libraries coded that will need updated - some obviously, some not so 
obviously.

For whatever it may be worth,

$0.02


Ben

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Reply via email to