> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Development] New proposal for the tool naming > > On terça-feira, 23 de outubro de 2012 16.33.05, Ziller Eike wrote: >> >> So that if you happen to have a "real" qmake instead of > the wrapper in >> >> the >> >> PATH on linux, you don't realize that when you are doing > "qmake -qt5" to >> >> force "most current qt5 version" (or whatever the > semantics would be), >> >> you >> >> actually execute a completely different qmake? I don't think > that would >> >> be >> >> a good idea. >> > >> > >> > >> > It will do that too if it's in a separate build looking at a > non-standard >> > configuration path. >> >> I don't get what you mean with that. > > Er... convoluted way of saying that if you only have one Qt build visible > from > the wrapper, "qmake -qt5" can mean exactly one Qt build. Therefore, by > > exclusion of any other alternatives, it's the most recent build available > :-) > > In any case, "-qt5" may not mean "latest", but simply > "default 5.x version". > The implementation will decide what that means.
How is this any better then updating LSB/FHS with guidelines on how to properly install Qt on a Unix/Linux system? Is it not easier to simply say install to /usr/share/qt-5.0.0.0 with a symlink to /usr/share/qt5, and require that distro specific tools manage symlinks to qmake/etc in the path? Or even having /usr/share/qt in the path and simply manage a symlink to it? KISS is a very good principle, and I don't see it being applied in this discussion. Rather we are getting lots of "if we do this we solve this, but then if we do that we solve that"; and in all cases it is will cause headaches all around except for a few people. >> > That's mostly what's going to happen on Windows anyway, >> > isn't it? >> >> My concerns are about having -qt5 ignored for the "real" qmake on > linux. On >> Windows and Mac the -qt option is useless anyhow (which makes it >> questionable to use it there IMO, so it makes it questionable to use it in >> the documentation that way too IMO) >> >> I think all this becomes much too confusing. > > If the option is required in one platform and does not cause anything but a > minor inconvenience on others, why not document it? > So then will Qmake on Windows/Mac complain about the "-qt5" argument? Or simply drop it? $0.02 Ben _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development