Re: [gentoo-dev] Final qt/QTDIR scheme

[Dan Armak]

On Tuesday 09 October 2001 05:19, you wrote:
> 1) What are the difference between qt-x11 and qt-x11-free.
qt-x11 comes under the QPL license. This allows to use it freely in 
developing GPL'd apps, or to purchase a license file, install it and develop 
commercial ones.
qt-x11-free allows only the GPL part. It is essentially the same; this 
license is used e.g. for qt3 betas. I'm not going to add those to portage, I 
was just giving an example.

> 2) Why is it called qt-x11 and not just 'qt'?
>    I guess this is because you can build qt-embedded (Is that for
>    framebuffer)? or perhaps there even is a qt-fb for that. Anyway, my
>    point is, why not calling "regular" (x11) qt just plain and simple
>    'qt' and use an extra ending for the others?
Because qt-x11 is the full, proper name. The source archive/dir, for example, 
is also called qt-x11. That's why the ebuild is called qt-x11 too, and always 
have been. There's no need to shorten names, that just creates confusion :-). 
It's like calling gnome, GDE.

> When/if EClasses gets accepted they won't be restricted to KDE-use
> (right?) and should probably be used for all qt-apps (and probably
> others), meaning that if it's an qt2 app it inherits qt2.eclass and if
> it's an qt3 app it inherits qt3.eclass.
Er, wrong probably. Eclasses will not be used extensively outside kde; that's 
where they are most useful. They might be though. 
But when I said:
- An app being compiled outside ebuilds, non-kde qt apps, and everything else 
that doesn't use eclasses will have to trust that QTDIR is properly set, or 
to set it manually to /usr/lib/qt-x11-$MAJOR_VERSION (no biggie)
I forgot to mention that this is what *all* our ebuilds have had to do so 
far. So we're still far better off.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel