More libalkimia problems/questions was: problems compiling 4.8 on system with both qt4 and qt5

[Jack]

On 2016.10.24 11:20, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Am 24.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Jack:
> > Not only must the package name not conflict, but they must not both
> > install the same files.
> yes
> > I know all the .so files would be different, but right now, things
> > like the pkgconfig, cmake, and header files are identically named.   
> If
> > you change the qt5 version, it will be important to make sufficient
> > announcement so any packager as well as any application which uses  
> the
> > library knows to update.  I do agree it is a good idea, but it is  
> just
> > a bit difficult since there has already been a release of a qt5
> > version with the old name.
> That means it would be better to introduce the Qt4 variant with a
> different name as provided in the private repo or to leave it as it is
> and to stay having either Qt4 or Qt5 based alkimia ?
> >
> https://community.kde.org/Schedules/Applications/16.12_Release_Schedule
> mentions that on November 10, 2016 current master branch will be the
> next stable branch, so any change need to be done until that time to
> have dependencies present for stable Qt5 builds.
> 
I'm not sure what other apps are doing, but I think (personal opinion  
only) that leaving the qt4 as is and changing the qt5 name is probably  
the least distruptive.  However, KMM is in extragear, which does not  
follow that release schedule.  How many applications in that set use  
libalkimia?  Those are the ones which would need to know about this.

leave qt4, rename qt5:  all "legacy" builds and distros will not have  
to change anything, but any current user of the qt5 version will need  
to adapt.  The fewer such users already in production use, the better  
for this option.

rename qt4, leave qt5:  "legacy" users will have to adapt, but only if  
they want to use a newer release than 4.3.2.  I think the main case for  
this would be LTS versions of distributions, but they may well just  
stay with 4.3.2.  Anyone who has started using the qt5 version should  
not have to change anything - and although there may not be many yet,  
this is the use case that will grow the most.  However, since current  
use of qt5 is still relatively early in its life time, requiring a  
change now should not be too disruptive, thus my support for the first  
option.

Other opinions?

Jack