Incorrect Qt /usr install
dbn.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 09:14:25 PDT 2007
On 6/8/07, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > As for FHS compliance, it's probably not. But neither is Qt.
> The one-directory install of Qt (in /opt/qtX.XX for BLFS) is
> compliant with the FHS (other than we don't use /etc/opt/qt).
> And I thought the previous /usr install was also FHS compliant
> (noted the problems you describe with $QTDIR).
> I suppose what I'd like to see is a method that the TrollTech
> folks recommend, and is compliant with the FHS. Isn't the /opt
> method compliant with those two stipulations?
> Regardless, I realize folks want stuff in /usr. But shouldn't
> the book mention that the /usr method does not conform with
> the FHS, but we provide these instructions as a courtesy?
I see what you mean. Yeah, the /usr method isn't exactly FHS compliant
or recommended by Qt. Here's the only documentation I could find on a
quick breeze through their website:
It says it will install to /usr/local/Trolltech/Qt-4.1.5 by default
and you can change this with -prefix. Doesn't say anything about
playing with the other switches. So, the /opt style is definitely
conforms to that and the FHS.
As for QTDIR=/usr/share/qt, I checked out their tutorial here:
and played with qmake. It creates a Makefile that adds
-I$(QTDIR)/include. It also expects to find the mkspecs directory in
$(QTDIR), which it wouldn't before with QTDIR=/usr. So, I think this
is the right thing to do if you want the /usr style install.
So, if I add a blurb that the /usr style is not the Qt recommended
way, is this OK?
More information about the blfs-dev