Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895149 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- First off, for better or worse, fedora's policies do not require justification for a package review. So, arguing against a package in it's review on this basis, is... pointless. Now, *if* I were to make a case... :) I would say that qtchooser is the tool that Qt upstream came up with to standardize a way for developers to use/switch Qt development environments. Other distros are supporting it, and I think fedora should too. I argue not supporting qtchooser would make fedora look bad and hurt it's reputation. Second, I do agree that better solutions than qtchooser exist, and fedora's Qt packaging already does does support (imo) better options, like manually adjusting paths or using -qt4 and/or -qt5 postfix on related binaries as mentioned. However, that does not preclude supporting *yet another option*. This latest packaging implementation is careful to minimize side-effects, is not installed or used by default, and is strictly optional. As for binary location, I personally don't care all that much (/usr/lib/bikeshed anyone?). Strictly, our guidelines allow either, and I only chose /usr/lib (similar to ccache) because I personally consider /usr/libexec to be non-user-facing. I don't consider either option *wrong*. -- 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=K8MNjcJVxp&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review