9:54 p.m.
I was wondering why Qt compiler tools (qmake, moc, uic, etc.) are installed
with each name suffixed with -qt4 (qmake-qt4, moc-qt4). This diverges from
how upstream names its tools (specifically, without qt4 added), so it
caused me a little confusion when these tools appeared to be missing.
My solution was to add /usr/lib/qt4/bin to my PATH since this directory
contains symlinks that use upstream's name. However, I would prefer the
tools to be installed in /usr/bin without -qt4 appended. Is there a reason
why this shouldn't be done?
--
Aaron Faanes <dafrito(a)gmail.com>
10:35 p.m.
Aaron Faanes wrote:
I was wondering why Qt compiler tools (qmake, moc, uic, etc.) are
installed with each name suffixed with -qt4 (qmake-qt4, moc-qt4). This
diverges from how upstream names its tools (specifically, without qt4
added), so it caused me a little confusion when these tools appeared to be
missing.
My solution was to add /usr/lib/qt4/bin to my PATH since this directory
contains symlinks that use upstream's name. However, I would prefer the
tools to be installed in /usr/bin without -qt4 appended. Is there a reason
why this shouldn't be done?
We used the -qt4 postfix (which is a common practice among most distros
these days) to allow for a parallel-installable qt3.
-- rex
10:57 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
Aaron Faanes wrote:
> I was wondering why Qt compiler tools (qmake, moc, uic, etc.) are
> installed with each name suffixed with -qt4 (qmake-qt4, moc-qt4). This
> diverges from how upstream names its tools (specifically, without qt4
> added), so it caused me a little confusion when these tools appeared to
be
> missing.
>
> My solution was to add /usr/lib/qt4/bin to my PATH since this directory
> contains symlinks that use upstream's name. However, I would prefer the
> tools to be installed in /usr/bin without -qt4 appended. Is there a
reason
> why this shouldn't be done?
We used the -qt4 postfix (which is a common practice among most distros
these days) to allow for a parallel-installable qt3.
Ah, I figured it was something like that. I couldn't find it using the
following:
$ yum provides '*/bin/*-qt3'
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
No Matches found
$
So I guess the qt3 stuff lives in a repo I no longer have access to,
perhaps?
At any rate, the GNU Autoconf Archive has a AX_HAVE_QT macro that wasn't
aware of the -qt4 suffix, along with some other Fedora-specific deviations.
I'm going to submit a couple patches to that project in order to make their
macro work cleanly on Fedora, especially since things like -qt4 are common
practice.
Thanks for the response!
-- rex
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Aaron Faanes <dafrito(a)gmail.com>
11:07 p.m.
Aaron Faanes wrote:
> We used the -qt4 postfix (which is a common practice among most
distros
> these days) to allow for a parallel-installable qt3.
>
Ah, I figured it was something like that. I couldn't find it using the
following:
$ yum provides '*/bin/*-qt3'
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto,
refresh-packagekit No Matches found
$
So I guess the qt3 stuff lives in a repo I no longer have access to,
perhaps?
That the qt4 variants use a postfix doesn't imply that qt3 does too (it
currently does not, due to it's legacy heritage, for better or worse).
-- rex
11:55 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Aaron Faanes wrote:
>> We used the -qt4 postfix (which is a common practice among most distros
>> these days) to allow for a parallel-installable qt3.
>>
>
> Ah, I figured it was something like that. I couldn't find it using the
> following:
>
> $ yum provides '*/bin/*-qt3'
> Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto,
> refresh-packagekit No Matches found
> $
>
> So I guess the qt3 stuff lives in a repo I no longer have access to,
> perhaps?
That the qt4 variants use a postfix doesn't imply that qt3 does too (it
currently does not, due to it's legacy heritage, for better or worse).
So is it perhaps time to rename the qt3 stuff to -qt3 and make room
for the qt4 stuff?
Orcan
4:09 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> So is it perhaps time to rename the qt3 stuff to -qt3 and make room
> for the qt4 stuff?
It breaks existing stuff, and besides, we'll have to distinguish Qt 4
stuff
from Qt 5 stuff soon too.
Yeah,
it will break Qt 5 very, very soon. For qmake I expect we will stick
with this convention, so qmake-qt5. The more funny part will be the
Qt packages naming.
One thing are package splits. So there will be a new packages,
unrelated to current qt3/qt(4) packages. But I expect we would like to
have a qt(5) metapackage to mimic current Qt structure...
Actually I'd like to start with packaging soon.
R.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
11:10 a.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
That the qt4 variants use a postfix doesn't imply that qt3 does
too (it
currently does not, due to it's legacy heritage, for better or worse).
That, and qt3-devel does not install to /usr/bin, but to
/usr/lib/qt-3.3/bin, which it adds to the PATH using an /etc/profile.d
snippet.
Kevin Kofler
4425
days inactive
4427
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Aaron Faanes -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Kevin Kofler -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Rex Dieter