Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 04:34:13 -0500 (EST) From: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> To: (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co, "R. Imura" <imura@cs.titech.ac.jp> Subject: Re: Possible change in the Qt port. Message-ID: <XFMail.991107043413.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> In-Reply-To: <vqcaeoqpseq.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Nov-99 Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> ${PREFIX}/include/qt2/ -> ${PREFIX}/lib/qt/include/qt2/
Qt2 goes in its own league. You can't mix and match. (remember, Qt2 requires
gcc 2.95.*, whereas Qt 1.4x does not.)
> (the filenames are hypothetical, I don't know if qt has any
> executables -- just take these as examples of the idea)
moc is _the_ Qt binary. It's normally in ${X11BASE}/bin/.
> If so, I'm against this change. There are reasons and history behind
> us asking ports to conform to our hier; this runs completely counter
> to it.
hier(7) does seem to disagree with this, as neither includes nor binaries are
"X11 libraries".
I think the BIGGEST problem with Qt / KDE is the way KDE has its stuff
installed into ${LOCALBASE} instead of ${X11BASE}, like Qt does. Many ports
depend on both Qt and KDE libraries/includes, making it extremely difficult for
a port to know where to install things.
I propose that KDE be moved to ${X11BASE}, all of it. Why it was put into
${LOCALBASE} in the first place is beyond me.
--
Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w---
?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+
G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y?
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?XFMail.991107043413.andrews>