On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Harald Sitter <sit...@kde.org> 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, If the prefix ever disappears, aren't we going to end up with exactly the same crisis in reverse, with Qt4 apps now accidentally linking against a Qt5 library with exactly the same name? > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list > Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
