On Thursday, October 18, 2012 08:30:03 AM Thiago Macieira wrote:
[...]
Tor Arne and I have been discussing this once more and we'd like to make an
alternative proposal. But first let's try to summarize.
(1) It seems that there is an agreement on the naming of the libraries and
pkg-config
On Friday, October 19, 2012 02:24:09 PM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:24:37PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
(1) It seems that there is an agreement on the naming of the libraries and
pkg-config files.
not really. i'm not as strongly opposed to it as to renaming the
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:01:05PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
Wouldn't it be kind of weird though if the libQtCore.so symlink would live in
say /usr/lib/qt5/lib but libQtCore.so.5.0.0 itself would be locacted in
/usr/lib?
no, because libQtCore.so.5.0.0 would also live in /usr/lib/qt5/lib
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 13.24.37, Simon Hausmann wrote:
Regardless of the solution we find for Qt distro packages, it seems
sensible that the Qt users can continue to find a /usr/bin/qmake program
that corresponds to the most recent release of Qt. This provides
consistency with
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 13.24.37, Simon Hausmann wrote:
Regardless of the solution we find for Qt distro packages, it seems
sensible that the Qt users can continue to find a /usr/bin/qmake program
Distros would configure Qt with -prefix /usr -bindir /usr/lib/qt5/libexec etc.
Let's make it more flexible for those who will configure:
I'd rather -prefix /usr -bindir /usr/bin -libexecdir /usr/lib/qt5/libexec
since /usr/bin is still an important path where one would expect to
find some
On sexta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2012 19.32.05, Laszlo Papp wrote:
I have not personally been much fan of that schema... Thiago, I hope
your next proposal will not be qmake5.0, qmake5.1 and the like based
upon some python precedence.
Even though python does install python3.2 and python3.3, the
