On 17/12/14 22:47, Harald Sitter wrote: > alohas. > > recently the QCA maintainer and I got into a discussion [1] whether a > qca-qt5 library should be a different config inside the same cmake > package or an independent one (detailed discussion in the longest > comment thread of the review). > >> find_package(Qca NAMES Qca-qt5 Qca-QT5 Qca-5 Qca REQUIRES) > > or > >> find_package(Qca-qt5) > > former is very much in line with the maintainer's expectation of how > qca is supposed to have any odd suffix supplied by the distro [2] that > would eventually disappear, whereas my thinking in latter is that if > distros start shipping a suffixed version it is here to stay and > really should not be considered a configuration within the regular QCA > package. > > any thoughts on whether one is more desirable than the other? I am not > quite sure what one would generally consider proper here. > > [1] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121323/ > [2] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121168/ > > HS >
The latter is consistent with many other libraries (eg. phonon) and is the best solution from a practical point of view. The maintainer's solution makes it very difficult for downstream as it requires every single consuming package in mixed Qt4/Qt5 system to be patched (as well as other reasons I won't rehash here). I believe a good compromise is to replace QCA_SUFFIX=whatever with some new option like QCA_QT5_SUFFIX which sets a static suffix. A common suffix will improve compatibility between distributions as well as make it easier for consuming applications that support both Qt4/Qt5 build. Plus, it's still in the spirit of the maintainer's preferred solution (prefix-based, optional, & easily removed in the future if/when Qt4 support is dropped). _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
