[Bug 878188] Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188

--- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
FWIW, IMHO, qtchooser is a totally insane and unsupportable "solution", I don't
think we should even try to support that. The apparently same executable ends
up actually spawning a completely different binary based on one or more of:
* yet another nonstandard environment variable (why not use PATH for that?),
* one or more config file(s) (WTF? Which binary gets run depends on CONFIG
FILES?) and/or
* a command-line argument, whose use will spit errors when an actual binary
gets found instead (thus totally unreliable for build systems to use, yet it's
the only of the 3 mechanisms which would make any sense at all for a build
system to use).
Your build system finds a qmake, thinks it is a Qt 5 qmake, and suddenly, the
user changes a config file on you in the background and your build ends up
calling the Qt 4 (or even Qt 3) qmake instead? What the f***?

But even if we do end up supporting qtchooser, having the suffixed binaries
(with appropriate CMake adjustments to search for them instead of the
unsuffixed ones, it's fairly trivial (just change the find_program lines), a
sample patch was posted to kde-packager) is only going to help and not conflict
with qtchooser.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fRXkt2qkNA&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]