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? 

cheerio Berndt
-- 
Name    : Berndt Josef Wulf            | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail  : wulf@ping.net.au             |    tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ     : 18196098                     |  VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia 
URL     : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.4    | BBS  : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc