Subject: Re: qt2
To: Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
From: Thomas Klausner <email@example.com>
Date: 01/20/2000 13:54:06
Mutt made be believe that Matthias Drochner wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > In this case I propose renaming the current qt-directory to qt1, but
> > let it's name still be qt-1.x. Then we change all the dependencies,
> > and make a new package qt, which really is qt-2.x.
> Changing the dependencies is not enough. qt2 is very different from
> qt1, that's why I used the term "practically impossible" in my
> previous mail.
By changing the dependencies I meant replacing ../../devel/qt with
../../devel/qt1, so that they still use the same library we know they
> And excluding people using something based on qt1
> (as KDE) from qt2 development would suck.
But it's not a problem pkgsrc can easily solve. But you're welcome to
make pkgsrc/qt1 install into a different directory and change all
packages that depend on it to find it, and not qt2 which then would be
in the default locations.
I think that in the long run we will prefer to have qt2 available, and
not be stuck with qt1 just because we have some programs that still
depend on it.
And we already do have some packages that conflict each other like qt1
and qt2 will.
What do others think?
Thomas Klausner - email@example.com
Programming is like sex:
One mistake and you have to support for a lifetime.