Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-02 Thread Thiago Macieira
On sexta-feira, 2 de novembro de 2012 15.11.40, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > But we're not installing to the common directory. We're installing to an > > arch- specific path, which the existing infrastructure may not be > > equipped to handle. So it's entirely possible we'll end up with > > duplic

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-02 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 01:12:14PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 20.32.06, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > You're asking that they have a different 32-bit package to be installed on > > > 64- bit systems than then 32-bit package to be installed on 32-bit > >

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 13.12.14, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > the question is only whether we go the whole nine yards or stop halfway > > through. if we stop, the configure command line will be -prefix /usr > > -bindir /usr/lib/$arch/qt5/bin, which isn't exactly the pinnacle of > > be

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 20.32.06, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > You're asking that they have a different 32-bit package to be installed on > > 64- bit systems than then 32-bit package to be installed on 32-bit > > systems. That's a policy change. > > last time i looked, /usr/lib/i38

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:37:22AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 17.13.58, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > > > distributions should have *both*: > > > > > /usr/lib/qt5//bin/assistant AND > > > > > /usr/lib64/qt5/bin/assistant >

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 17.13.58, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > You MUST provide a set of installation instructions. This is YOUR > > proposal, > > which we must analyse and compare to mine. > > my proposal is very simple: wrap everything in QT_HOST_BINS (which > equals QT_INSTALL_B

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 08.47.12, Knoll Lars wrote: > > 4) new installation paths (besides the bin directory) > > The latest patch I've provided creates a grouping of all arch-dependent > > files in ARCHDATADIR, with arch-independent files in DATADIR. That > > change, by itself, is

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 10.57.59, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > as pointed out in another mail, this doesn't phaze us a bit - unless > > some distro thinks it's wise to override our choice and install an > > unversion

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 10.57.59, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > Ossi: let me ask you something then: do you want our make install to > > manage > > both /usr/lib *and* /usr/lib/qt5/lib? > > no. > > > My argument is that the split is necessary because we're being asked to > > manage a

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Jan Kundrát
On 10/31/12 15:14, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > there is no need to make it ignore anything, as -lQtCore would not find > any of the above files. the unversioned symlink would be found by virtue > of adding -L/usr/lib64/qt5/lib to the linker command line, and that > directory (which you get from qma

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Sze Howe Koh
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Knoll Lars wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Thiago Macieira > wrote: > > 2) QML tool names > > Kai raised the point that many of the QML 2 tools work for QML 1 too and > > maybe > > even for Qt 4's QML 1. We need confirmation on that as well as the > > wi

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:02:20AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 12.23.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > 3) library versioning (i.e., adding "5" to the library name) > > > > -1 > > > > renaming is unnecessary: > > - there is no problem at all at run-time

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-11-01 Thread Knoll Lars
Hi, after reading through the whole thread, here's my comments on the different parts: On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > If I've forgotten anything, please add. > > As far as I can tell, here are the pending decisions, in increasing order of > severity: > > 1) QML enviro

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 11.56.25, Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 01/11/12 09:41, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 09.23.37, Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > >> On 01/11/12 01:02, Thiago Macieira wrote: > >>> Also, do I understand correctly that you're suggesting t

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 11.39.22, Chris Adams wrote: > You're right. > Ok, all in all, I think having separate import install paths and separate > envvars to define the import path basedir at runtime is the best solution > after all. Thanks. That makes my life easier because there's

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Lincoln Ramsay
On 01/11/12 09:41, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 09.23.37, Lincoln Ramsay wrote: >> On 01/11/12 01:02, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> Also, do I understand correctly that you're suggesting that multiarch >>> >>> distributions should have *both*: >>> /usr/lib/qt5//b

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Chris Adams
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 10.01.11, Chris Adams wrote: > > Regarding QML_IMPORT_PATH, I discussed this yesterday and this morning > with > > Martin Jones and Andrew den Exter, and a couple of things deserve > > mentioning: > >

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 10.01.11, Chris Adams wrote: > Regarding QML_IMPORT_PATH, I discussed this yesterday and this morning with > Martin Jones and Andrew den Exter, and a couple of things deserve > mentioning: > 1) through the versioning of imports (ie, the path lookup with major/

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Chris Adams
Hi, On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2012-10-30, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > 1) QML environment variables > > The variable for import paths has been versioned from QML_IMPORT_PATH to > > QML2_IMPORT_PATH. But I have not changed any of the other variables. We > need a > >

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012 09.23.37, Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 01/11/12 01:02, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Also, do I understand correctly that you're suggesting that multiarch > > > > distributions should have *both*: > > /usr/lib/qt5//bin/assistant AND >

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Lincoln Ramsay
On 01/11/12 01:02, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Also, do I understand correctly that you're suggesting that multiarch > distributions should have *both*: > /usr/lib/qt5//bin/assistant AND > /usr/lib64/qt5/bin/assistant > /usr/lib/qt5//bin/linguist AND

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 12.23.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > 4) new installation paths (besides the bin directory) > > The latest patch I've provided creates a grouping of all arch-dependent > > files in ARCHDATADIR, with arch-independent files in DATADIR. That > > change, by its

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 08.02.20, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 12.23.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > 3) library versioning (i.e., adding "5" to the library name) > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > renaming is unnecessary: > > - there is no probl

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 20.31.57, André Pönitz wrote: > > And if we define the cut as the ones that have compatibility of > > purpose and output, versus the ones that don't? > > This sounds not overly wrong as it would reduce some possibly > needless duplication and reduction in disk

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread André Pönitz
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:06:33PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 30 de outubro de 2012 23.52.08, André Pönitz > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > 5) executable split between end-user applications and indirect > > > tooling The most c

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 09.46.18, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > On 10/31/2012 01:06 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > In any case, what's the problem with making a subjective decision? Clearly > > the applications need to be split in two groups, so why shouldn't the Qt > > Project make its

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2012 12.23.27, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > 3) library versioning (i.e., adding "5" to the library name) > > -1 > > renaming is unnecessary: > - there is no problem at all at run-time > - the problem at build time is solved by -L flags. there is no need for > an

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:26:09PM +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote: > On 10/31/12 12:23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > renaming is unnecessary: > > - there is no problem at all at run-time > > - the problem at build time is solved by -L flags. there is no need for > > an unversioned symlink in /usr/lib.

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2012-10-31, Poenitz Andre wrote: > This is not about "overriding someone". This is about ranking the user > experience of the majority of users higher than the convenience of a > handful of Linux distribution packagers - half which will do their own > renaming anyway, no matter what the offi

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Jan Kundrát
On 10/31/12 12:23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > renaming is unnecessary: > - there is no problem at all at run-time > - the problem at build time is solved by -L flags. there is no need for > an unversioned symlink in /usr/lib. On RHEL6, this is how it looks right now: kundratj@noe2 ~ $ locate /

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
this is just re-iterating stuff, but whatever. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > 1) QML environment variables > +1 > 2) QML tool names > 0 > 3) library versioning (i.e., adding "5" to the library name) > -1 renaming is unnecessary: - there is no problem at all a

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 09:46:18 Alberto Mardegan wrote: > Also consider that if you decide for a split of the binaries, you run > the risk that Qt6 will require a different split (some binary which is > reusable between Qt4 and Qt5 might not be compatible with Qt6, or some > Qt4-incompat

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Koehne Kai
> -Original Message- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > [...] > 2) QML tool names > Kai raised the point that many of the QML 2 tools work for QML 1 too and > may

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Poenitz Andre
Sune Vuorela: > This is something that will happen to be done. and for the sake of > documentation and support, please let it be consistant not only across > distributions, but also across platforms so that documentations don't > have to be > if mac | upstream-provided-linux-builds { > run qmake

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2012-10-30, Thiago Macieira wrote: > 1) QML environment variables > The variable for import paths has been versioned from QML_IMPORT_PATH to > QML2_IMPORT_PATH. But I have not changed any of the other variables. We need > a > decision from the team familiar with the engines and the meanings

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-31 Thread Alberto Mardegan
On 10/31/2012 01:06 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > In any case, what's the problem with making a subjective decision? Clearly the > applications need to be split in two groups, so why shouldn't the Qt Project > make its recommendation to the downstreams? I would like that all binaries are installed

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-30 Thread Thiago Macieira
On terça-feira, 30 de outubro de 2012 23.52.08, André Pönitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > 5) executable split between end-user applications and indirect tooling > > The most controversial proposal so far is to split the binaries into two > > groups:

Re: [Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-30 Thread André Pönitz
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > 5) executable split between end-user applications and indirect tooling > The most controversial proposal so far is to split the binaries into two > groups: one that gets installed to PREFIX/bin, containing the executables for > ap

[Development] Pending decisions on co-installation

2012-10-30 Thread Thiago Macieira
If I've forgotten anything, please add. As far as I can tell, here are the pending decisions, in increasing order of severity: 1) QML environment variables The variable for import paths has been versioned from QML_IMPORT_PATH to QML2_IMPORT_PATH. But I have not changed any of the other variable