On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 20.31.57, André Pönitz wrote: > > And if we define the cut as the ones that have compatibility of > > purpose and output, versus the ones that don't? > > This sounds not overly wrong as it would reduce some possibly > needless duplication and reduction in diskspace. > > On the other hand, I am not really sure it would be worthwhile. > On the machine in front of me I have e.g. /usr/bin/designer-qt4 > (symlinked via /etc/alternatives/designer and /usr/bin/designer) > with 422584 bytes, assistant with 965092 etc. So the total "shared" > set is in the single digit MB range per installed version of Qt > (minus 1). > > Is this really worth the hassle compared to putting everything > into the same sandbox?
Yes. If we can do it and do it cleanly, why not? Don't tell me it's difficult. It's done now and it works. Alberto has suggested that we ensure that all executables are in ARCHDATADIR/bin and we manage a few via symlinks or wrapping in PREFIX/bin. I don't like the idea because I don't see the need to have the executables in both bin directories, but that is a solution I could live with. I disagree with leaving /usr/bin unmanaged at all. I want to hear the arguments on why we should not manage that on "make install". -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
