Re: [Fwd: Re: [Dlc-discuss] [Fwd: Linux fragmentation and desktop standards]]

Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2003 8:18 am, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>>a make install of Qt seems ends up with /usr/local/qt that has a bin,
>>>lib, plugin, templates and tools. bin and tools belong elsewhere, the
>>>lib/plugins belong in /usr/lib...
>>
>>I figure that we make an exception for Qt as what I think of as a major
>>package and add an entry to the path and ld.so.conf file for it.  The
>>alternative is to slice and dice it.
> 
> 
> The problem with Qt is that it is installed in a completely different way to 
> every other piece of software for *nixes. IMO, the solution is to get rid of 
> the idiotic 'compile in place' system (which leave large amounts of source 
> files around to be cleaned up and is highly inconvenient) and instead use the 
> same system as everybody else, i.e. make; make install. Part of the reason 
> that Qt is often put in it's own seperate directory in /usr/lib is that if 
> you put it in /usr where by rights it ought to be, and compilation fails, 
> then you've got a lot of detritus in a directory essential to the system. 
> This is just poor design on the part of trolltech.

I do think that you missed my point, but any who:

It is supposed to have: 'make install' but the common wisdom is 
that it is broken.  But if it did work, there is still the 
question of what to use for a: 'prefix' -- should it be installed 
in its own directory tree or not?

But in any case, should the executables be installed in:

	/usr/lib/qt-x.y.z/bin/

????????

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent KDE or the author's employer.