On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Simon Hausmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 09:37:26 am ext Koskinen Janne wrote: >> Hi all, this is my last attempt on this even if the bug was closed etc. >> >> QtWebkit.sis on QtWebkit2.1 branch is currently versioned as 4.8.0. >> If we keep this version when Qt 4.8 is out or new version of QtWebkit is >> released it will need to be incremented. This means that Qt 4.8 would have >> QtWebkit version 4.9 or that Qt 4.8 would have to ship with QtWebkit2.1. >> >> Problem is that user will see this number if manually installing. Installer >> prompts "xxx needs QtWebkit 4.8.0(0), are you sure you want to install?" >> and will be pretty bad as there is no such version anywhere. > > IMHO this is not a technical problem but an issue with the UI of the Symbian > installer, that in the first place shouldn't present the users with questions > about version numbers users shouldn't have to know about in the first place. > > I mean seriously, based on the provided information ("app needs foo 4.8.0"), > how can the user actually make an informed decision? ("are you sure?") > > So IMHO we shouldn't change version numbers just to work around UI issues in > Symbian. > >> Worse problem is that smart installer will use these numbers to determine >> which version of QtWebkit is required to run application x. We cannot >> change the sis file numbers to 2.1.0 as we have already deployed Qt and >> there are applications that depend on QtWebkit version 4.6.3 or 4.7.0 and >> as such those version would have to be installed to be able to run them as >> they both are higher version than 2.x.x. > > Right, so if we don't change anything right now, stick to 4.8, 4.9, etc. , > we'll be fine, no? > >> This is simplification of the issue, add Symbian file eclipising, add >> version number size restrictions and you start to feel why this is baaad. > > I admit I don't see why 4.8 and 4.9, etc. are bad. What other issues are > there?
Isn't it inconsistent to have the version set as 4.8.0, for example, if this is not the version included in Qt-4.8.0? Also, if a developer wants to identify which webkit he's using, he'll look at the soname of the library. If libQtWebKit-4.8.0 is actually qtwebkit-2.1 and libQtWebKit-4.9.0 is qtwebkit-2.2 but the latest version of Qt is, say, 4.7.2, he'll be *really* confuse. It'll be even worse in a few years after Qt-4.8 and Qt-4.9 are released. At least on linux, I would consider it messy to have the soname (technical version) not in sync with the release/documented version. It would be bad to have a "release numbers translation table", even worse to have versions resembling the original Qt versions. BR, - Ademar -- Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. <[email protected]> OpenBossa - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia _______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
