On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:

> mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote
> > 
> > > I can't see an easy way of fixing this.
> > > 
> > > In hinsight, wouldn't it be easier to call the new qt-2.x stuff
> > > libqt2 and moc2 and left libqt stuff alone? 
> > 
> > well, the problem is I assume that moving forward that qt-2.x will be the
> > "standard" and qt-1.x will be obsolete.  KDE2 which is supposed to come
> > out in a couple of months is supposed to have moved to qt-2.x.
> 
> What naming convention do you use on the qt-2 stuff  - libqt2 and
> moc2? If so than libqt1 and libqt2 can co-exist by use of softlinks.
> The problem then are the header files, but since there are
> only a few apps using qt-2 right now (well when compared with all the
> KDE stuff) wouldn't it be easier to supply the --with-qt-includes
> argument for those at compile time? 

I haven't gotten to updating the qt pkg to 2.0.2 yet, but it appears that
the default names are moc,libqt, and include/qt/.  Thats really what
started this headache.  Qt-2 isn't backwards compatible with Qt-1 and it
naming clashes making coexistence rough at best....

-Dan