> On 2021 Feb 16, at 14:31, Kai Köhne <kai.koe...@qt.io> wrote: > > Well, let's just realize that, by renaming qmake to qmake6 everywhere > (including in the documentation), we actually create some confusion for our > existing users, too. Also, I think adding version numbers to the name of > tools is just no good user experience, and creates unnecessary friction when > switching between Qt versions. > > To be honest, the whole discussion feels to me that we are being held hostage > right now for the fraction of Linux users that cannot use update-alternatives > (because they are not administrators). If having different names of tools is > such a big problem, why wasn't this addressed by now in Linux itself? > > And again, this is not something limited to Qt. Last time I checked, the > executable to run Python 3 on Windows is python.exe, not python3.exe. On > Debian at least it's python3. This hasn't blocked Python from being perceived > as overall beginner friendly ... > > So, I would stick to qmake as canonical name, also in the documentation. We > can mention that it's sometimes called qmake6 on Linux. But forcing everyone > to change their habit and scripts just for the sake of consistency with a > fraction of the users that use a global installation on Linux, and do not use > update-alternatives, is IMO not a good move.
I’m not fond of the renaming either. But as long as the non-suffix tools get installed into /usr/lib/qt6/bin and the ones with suffixes are links in /usr/bin, it looks like we get a decent compromise. I’m happy to go on using qtchooser and configuring it to point to non-suffix binaries. But the distros need to get in sync to have the suffix be simply 6, not -qt6, IMO. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
