[kde-solaris] [kde-discuss] KBE 1.0 - Build enviroment for KDE

[Shawn Walker]

On Dec 11, 2007 3:28 PM, Alan DuBoff <alan.duboff at sun.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > I don't see how the installation path != runpath.
>
> I'm going to type this slowly, so please try to follow along at home.
>
> The installation of the software will go into /usr/bin, /usr/sbin,
> /usr/etc.
>
> The runpath will be set to /usr/lib, which is where it will get it's
> libraries from.

That's only part of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about filenames too.

> > This is my issue, which Adrian seemed to understand perfectly:
> >
> > /usr/lib/libqt4.so (linked against stdcxx)
>
> If he understood that perfectly, it would be clear that the apache lib is
> named differently and when linked against an app, will be picked up from
> the runpath.

I'm not talking about the Apache lib, I'm talking about the Qt lib.

Will the proposed project deliver Qt 4 linked against stdcxx as:

/usr/lib/libqt4.so

instead of one of these possibilities:

/usr/lib/kde/libqt4-kde.so
/usr/lib/stdcxx/libqt4-kde.so
/usr/lib/libqt4-stdcxx.so

> > A binary application built on someon else's system that is *not*
> > linked against stdcxx picks that library up and then fails.
>
> KDE applications will need to link with the Apache library.

A Qt application is not necessarily a KDE application; so requiring
non-KDE applications to link against Apache is a non-starter.

> > How will it be ensured that the C++ dependencies KDE has that are
> > incompatible with other C++ applications not linked against stdcxx
> > won't cause issues?
>
> I'll also type this one slowly...
>
> We - are - using - a - different - library.

I'll type this one slowly...

Are - you - naming - this - version - of - qt - that - uses - stdcxx -
differently - to - prevent - conflicts?

> > Since all I keep hearing is "it's going to /usr and you'll like it or
> > else!"
>
> That is not it at all.

It sure seems like it.


> Tell me something. What will you do when the rest of the system moves to
> /usr? Because you better get to offering up your debate with the folks
> that are doing that. It's underway, AFAIK.

My main complaints about /usr are two things:

1) Sun has not yet made any declaration that software delivered by
third parties should be installed into /usr. The ARC cases so far have
only applied to software *Sun* distributes.

2) Delivering the software into /usr now before Sun officially changes
the guidelines is akin to telling users and developers that you don't
care.

You keep repeating this thing about "things changing" yet things
aren't changing for third parties that deliver software; only for Sun!

-- 
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/

"To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." -
Robert Orben