On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:08:38AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On segunda-feira, 22 de outubro de 2012 15.45.56, Oswald > Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:16:14PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > Note: this applies to the *tools* only. The library naming and > > > installation paths for plugins and QML files has remained > > > uncontested so far, so we appear to have a consensus. > > > > only if you conveniently ignore my two (or three?) mails saying > > the exact opposite. the problem with renaming the libraries is > > the same as with tools: project files not based on qmake need to > > be adjusted. > > Indeed, but I contest that those changes are minor, expected and > understandable. The vast majority of the users are probably using > either qmake or cmake (99%?) and those are taken care of already.
That would leave Visual Studio at less than 1%, which is certainly not in sync with any survey I've seen during the last ten years. > I beg to differ. Let's take the example of a buildsystem that is > trying to retain source compatibility (thus, we're excluding cmake > and, for many things, qmake too [think of QT += widgets > print-support]). We can group them in two buckets: > > A) those that run those tools without absolute paths B) those that > run them with absolute paths > > How do they find the absolute path? The only answer is "qmake > -query QT_INSTALL_BINS". C) It's hard coded. Having company policies saying "All sources have to be on a X:\Project 0815\Sources, and Q:\ is subst'ed to a place with a Qt installation we want you to use today" is more common than either of us may wish for... Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development