On Dec 11, 2007 12:57 PM, Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >> Who are the "*other* developers" who depend on a build of QT that > >> depends on libCstd.so.1 ? There is no QT right now in Solaris, QT3 or > >> QT4, therefore there cannot be any "other developer" who depends on > >> any particular build configuration of QT. > >> > >> RedHerring #2: We can't do <X> because of a non-existent hypothetical > >> situation <Y>. > > > > Bull. I would bet that most Qt developers that are running Solaris are > > building and using the "standard C++ library"; not stdcxx. > > I think you mean the Sun libCstd.so.1. The Standard C++ Library is > just that, a Standard. There are several different implementations > thereof.
Whatever; stop nitpicking. You know what I'm talking about. Whatever C++ library you get when you don't link against stdcxx. > Facts. Do you have any documented facts to back up your assertions ? > Noone is interested in "i would bet", "i guess", "i think", "i feel". > We want facts. Do you have any ? Do you know of any QT distribution > which installs, right now, under /usr, and which would create a > conflict ? Can you provide an URL to it ? How about you do the same for what you are proposing? You *know* that linking Qt against stdcxx can cause conflicts. So how are you going to justify them? > > As a result, they would be depending on a version of Qt not built with > > stdcxx. > > As a result of what ? Your guess, which is based on an assumption ? No more guess than yours that what you are doing won't cause a problem. > > Are you really going to force them to relocate their build of Qt to a > > different place (possibly) just because you want to build yours > > against stdcxx which is not an expectation? > > I don't know the hypothetical installation location of the > hypothetical QT build where these hypothetical QT developers have > installed their hypothetical QT libraries. Neither do you. I don't know the hypothetical documentation you have to prove your hypothetical belief that it won't cause problems if you link your version of Qt against stdcxx for developers who don't. > If anyone has built and installed *any* software under /usr, in > Solaris, they have assumed the risk that Sun Microsystems, Inc. might, > at some point in the future, decide to install the exact same thing > under /usr, thereby overwriting said poor choice of installation location. > > *This one* is a known fact. Yes, and it's a known fact that this whole discussion has been about installation locations and using the defaults. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
