On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 14:09, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 27 October 2020 09:34:44 PST Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Have we fixed it? > > > > I do not plan on updating qtchooser for Qt 6. Qt 6 should not install any > > binary with the same name as Qt 5 did. > > Lars and I just had a quick discussion on IRC about this and here's what we > propose. Ground rules and caveats: > > 1) MOST tools do not need to be in $PATH for most users. We developers are not > most users. For us, setting PATH is acceptable. We're also likely the only > audience to have more than one 5.x or 6.x Qt version installed. > > 2) This recommendation need not be supported by the buildsystem in time for > 6.0.0, but needs to be as early as possible and by 6.1 at the latest. This > recommendation allows Linux distributions to apply workarounds meanwhile, > other buildsystems to adjust (read: Meson), and for us to write docs and QUIP. > > 3) there's a question of cross-compilation relating to qmake and host tools, > which I have not followed and do not understand the current state of. Need > input here. > > With that in mind, our recommendation is as follows: > > a) ALL tools be installed to a binary directory that is not $prefix/bin > b) SOME tools be symlinked/hardlinked/stubbed into $prefix/bin, with a suffix > (we recommend a simple "6" instead of "-qt6") > c) ADDITIONALLY, some further tools can be present unsuffixed > > The question is what tools are those in lists (b) and (c). Starting with the > easiest (c): > - linguist > - qdbus > - qdbusviewer > > Those are user-facing tools that definitely do not depend on Qt version. It's > up to the implementer to decide which Qt version they want these tools to be > and any choice is fine. My guess is that for two of the three, it will depend > mostly on Look-and-Feel with the desktop. But since these are an implementer's > choice, Qt installation never installs those tools with the unsuffixed names > by default.
Agreed to all above. > Then there's the question of which tools we recommend be in $PATH with a > suffix (list (b)). Please expand on this list if necessary, with a reason. > Here's the minimum list: > > qmake6 entry point for building qmake-based applications, situation > similar to /usr/bin/python (see [1]) > qml6 I don't understand why, but I'm told it's necessary > qtdiag6 entry point for debugging problems with Qt 6 > qtpaths6 because knowing the path in order to run the tool to get > paths sounds weird. Having this in $PATH allows us to > help users get to the other, debugging tools (qtplugininfo, > qmlplugindump, etc.) > > Possibly also: > > assistant6 for reading Qt 6 help files when not using Qt Creator > designer6 for those not using Qt Creator and needing to use Qt 6 plugins Also agreed. I would consider assistant6 and designer6 to be included in list (b) due to past experience. Tools I don't know if they should or shouldn't be in this list: - pixeltool: it's a screen magnifier, never used it before, but clearly not something used at build time. Sounds like a user-facing app for me. - qtplugininfo: I sincerely don't know how it's being used. - qtwaylandscanner: same as above. - tracegen: same as above - sdpscanner: "Performs an SDP scan on remote device, using the SDP server represented by the local Bluetooth device." Sounds like a user-facing app. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development