On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:29:25AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 29/11/2007, Lukas Oboril <oboril.lukas at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/assistant > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/designer > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/linguist > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/lrelease > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/lupdate > > >/usr/qt4/4.3.2/bin/moc > > > > why do you use specific version number (4.2.3). I think /usr/qt4 is > > enough path (same as /usr/qt3). > > Becuase qt is not compatible between major versions?
QT calls its dot-version a major? > So, you may need 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 installed at the same time since > they provide different levels of compatibility. Is there any point in trying to limit the number of libraries on the system with the same name but incompatible versions? This *is* dll hell, and it'd be super nice to avoid it. Are there enough QT-based applications which can't simply be rebuilt to use whatever version of QT is on the system to really require all the libraries? Alternately, would it make sense to have only one version of the QT binaries, headers, and .so links, and have all other versions on the system be only libraries which other binaries may have already linked against? I don't know Qt at all, but I'd like to see some analysis of the costs and benefits of imposing just a wee bit of engineering discipline on this, rather than giving up entirely. Danek
