sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Sukneet Basuta <sukneet AT gmail.com>
- To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:57:56 -0400
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org> wrote:
But I wonder: How does anyone ever to test builds of Qt5 for, you know,
developing it, if it always fails when a version of Qt5 is already
installed?
It's what they assume, too: You install to a separate prefix and I
strongly assume that this avoids this stupid self-conflict during build.
I've done this a bunch of times. When installing to different prefixes, it should work.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org> wrote:
Am Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:23:31 +0200
schrieb Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>:
> Are there parts that aren't included in the big upstream lump?
Seems like upstream wants to go modular after all, so perhaps the
separate spells are what's intended. I wonder how well versions mix.
I'm not sure what their long-term plans are, but all the standard stuff is included in the single tarball.
IME, mixing versions doesn't work well unless you are doing developer builds. Some modules refuse to run.
-
[SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Thomas Orgis, 04/24/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Thomas Orgis, 04/24/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Sukneet Basuta, 04/24/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Thomas Orgis, 04/25/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Treeve Jelbert, 04/25/2015
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess, Thomas Orgis, 04/25/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Treeve Jelbert, 04/25/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Thomas Orgis, 04/25/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Sukneet Basuta, 04/24/2015
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Qt5 mess,
Thomas Orgis, 04/24/2015
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.