Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:52:50 +0900 From: "R. Imura" <imura@cs.titech.ac.jp> To: andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM.asami@FreeBSD.ORG, se@FreeBSD.ORG, pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible change in the Qt port. Message-ID: <19991110015250N.imura@cs.titech.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.991108112648.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> References: <vqcaeopmjyb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <XFMail.991108112648.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 08-Nov-99 Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> > Ok, but what does that have to do with moving the include files from
> > one segregated subdirectory to another?
>
> It means that Qt 1.4x and 2.x's QTDIRs would need to be separate. I.e., they
> can't both be placed in ${X11BASE}/lib/qt (as per Pedro's suggestion), unless
> you really want to complicate things (in terms of hier(7)). I just think it's
> better organization to keep them separate, but it is possible to put both of
> their libraries and includes (in seperate directories) under ${X11BASE}/lib/qt.
> However, take note that programs' configure scripts normally look for Qt
> libraries in $(QTDIR)/lib, moc in $(QTDIR)/bin, and so forth.
It seems you have the problem with the name of library.
But we can't change libqt2 to libqt even if we make the separeted QTDIRs.
This will require people setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to using each of qt apps,
or we have to prepare wrapper script for each of qt apps.
> > * 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.
> >
> > Hmm.
>
> You do realize that almost everything based on Qt seems to be based on KDE too,
> right? :-)
>
> > I believe the reason why it was put into ${LOCALBASE} was because the
> > default Makefiles that come with KDE want to install into
> > ${LOCALBASE}/kde which Stefan (KDE maintainer) changed to
> > ${LOCALBASE}. Is that the only reason why it's in ${LOCALBASE} and
> > not ${X11BASE}, Stefan?
>
> I myself would have checked the mailing list archives for an answer to this,
> but I believe an up-to-date explanation is in order (or an update to the KDE
> ports :-). This is why I suggested this.
>
> Such KDE/Qt-based programs also seem to look for KDE stuff in ${X11BASE}, so we
> would only need to be changing patches to the KDE ports, if any (rather than
> patching every godforsaken KDE-based program to make them look in ${LOCALBASE}).
Now, KDE's default prefix is now /usr/local, but you can change it to
${X11BASE} easy by setting PREFIX=${X11BASE}.
I once thought about the prefix of KDE but ${PREFIX}/include couldn't be moved
to any place because of KDE's terrible configure script. If the headers are
installed to ${X11BASE}/include, under ${X11BASE}/include will be very dirty.
I don't like it.
So, I kept it in ${LOCALBASE}.
Stefan may think so too.
---
R. Imura
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?19991110015250N.imura>