qca-qt5 package name

[Michael Palimaka]

On 17/12/14 22:47, Harald Sitter 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, 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
> 

The latter is consistent with many other libraries (eg. phonon) and is
the best solution from a practical point of view.

The maintainer's solution makes it very difficult for downstream as it
requires every single consuming package in mixed Qt4/Qt5 system to be
patched (as well as other reasons I won't rehash here).

I believe a good compromise is to replace QCA_SUFFIX=whatever with some
new option like QCA_QT5_SUFFIX which sets a static suffix. A common
suffix will improve compatibility between distributions as well as make
it easier for consuming applications that support both Qt4/Qt5 build.
Plus, it's still in the spirit of the maintainer's preferred solution
(prefix-based, optional, & easily removed in the future if/when Qt4
support is dropped).