Hi! On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:09, Lars Knoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > I honestly don't think renaming all our binaries is an option, certainly not > that late in the process. We’ve had Qt 4 and Qt 5 co-installed for a long > time as well and while that might not be perfect it was working. > > And qtchooser has been working nicely for me (Ubuntu at least uses it). >
With all due respect, this is a *huge* sigh for me. I have been trying to explain endless times why this is *not* true. If it works it's because we maintainers have been doing quite a lot of hacks to let things "work". Seriously, we have discussed this before, and we kind of agreed that user-facing applications should either be really backwards compatible or should have the tool suffixed with the qt version. Whatever other option is just pain for maintainers, be it trough qtchooser or by letting us renaming tools ourselves. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
