Chris Spencer wrote: > I think the easiest thing to do would probably be to just add another > check for 'moc-qt4' and fail if it doesn't find either. I guess what I'm > really asking is why it was done like this? Developers expect it to be > under the name 'moc', renaming it without even a symlink is just going > to create problems. Both qt3 and qt4 provide "moc" (there are other dups, but let's still with this example). So, a convention that most distros use is to ship moc-qt3 and moc-qt4 (and possibly a 'moc' pointing to one of those). -- Rex -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
