<html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /></head><body style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Monospace">
<p>On Tuesday, 13. March 2007, David Johnson wrote:</p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> The current Qt4 ports install binaries with nonstandard names, such</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> as "qmake-qt4", "uic4", etc. Are there any plans to undo this in the</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> future?</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">No.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> (Or at least make them consistant?). While I'm sure it's convenient</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> for some port maintainers, it's somewhat annoying from a developer's</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">> perspective.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">While it may be inconvenient at first, I actually think it's a rather good thing: The names for qmake, moc and uic are "non-standard" not only in FreeBSD but a lot of linux distributions because Trolltech doesn't properly support qt3 and qt4 living in the same installation prefix. Developers (especially those of buildsystems) and their software will need to deal with this until TT will fix it (the next possible opportunity being qt5, which will not be here very soon).</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">For what it's worth: 'qmake-qt4' was chosen as a a name because cmake's Qt4 checks look for that binary name (because Debian started with the binary renaming business :) and subsequently retrieve all the other relevant binary names (such as uic4 and moc4) from it, which I think is reasonably convenient (if you're using cmake, but cmake is the future, right?).</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color:#007f00">Cheers,</span></p>
<p>-- </p>
<p> ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org</p>
<p> (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org</p>
<p> \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org</p>
<p></p>
</body></html>