Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:12:12 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Mikhail Kruk <meshko@cs.brandeis.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: qt2 vs qt, moc2 vs moc Message-ID: <20001224021212.A305@argon.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012240206120.4087-100000@daedalus.cs.brandeis.edu>; from meshko@cs.brandeis.edu on Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:07:43AM -0500 References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012240206120.4087-100000@daedalus.cs.brandeis.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:07:43AM -0500, Mikhail Kruk wrote: > it seems that many programs expect to have moc from qt2 called just moc, > however freebsd port has moc from qt2 called moc2 which makes installing > programs slightly more painfull that it could be. Is there any reason for > that? Yes. QT thinks everything it installs should go under a prefix, rather than splitting up files in their proper directories as hier(7) dictates, and so we have to rename the moc binary to something else to prevent conflicts between QT 1.x and QT 2.x. Unfortunately that is the prevalent design used by many software projects. Their installation just isn't flexible enough. GTK had the right idea with GTK_CONFIG though.. at least only one hack would have to be used. -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001224021212.A305>