On fredag 18. januar 2019 14:26:50 CET Simon Hausmann wrote: > I’m a fan of the idea that for Qt6 we remove all copies of third party > libraries and provide convenient binaries of them in the qt installed (as > separate package in there) as well as via vcpkg for those wanting to build > from source.
I completely agree, for Qt 6 we should do this in a different way. > Flex and bison are IMO exactly the same kind of third party software (except > that gnuwin32 offers installer executables). Therefore I suggest to not > have them in a repo but require the presence in the PATH and provide > binaries in the installer. I'd like to have a solution now that gets us there step by step. It sounds as if it's easy to add them to the installer, so we can for now just provide a zip file for now and provision that in the CI as interim solution. Cheers, Frederik > Simon > > > > On 18. Jan 2019, at 14:11, Frederik Gladhorn <frederik.gladh...@qt.io> > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to have some opinions about the gnuwin32 we currently have in > > qt5.git. This way we provide flex and bison for Windows. > > I think it's a bit mis-placed, in my opinion the tools which are needed on > > Windows should be in their own sub-module. > > > > I think we should continue to ship them as dependencies and have them > > available easily for developers. But placing them directly in the qt5 > > repository makes little sense. In Coin we have weird work around and more > > code that should be needed to make sure they are always in the right > > place. > > Assuming there are no better ideas, I'll request a new repository soon. > > > > Cheers, > > Frederik > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Development mailing list > > Development@qt-project.org > > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
