#44193: qt: allow side by side installation of qt4-mac and qt5-mac -------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: mojca@… | Owner: mcalhoun@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: Port: qt4-mac, qt5-mac | -------------------------------+------------------------ Comment (by mojca@…): Anything but (4) is acceptable. I'm sure that a lot of software doesn't work properly with Qt 5 yet. And some software doesn't work with Qt 4 any longer. We need to have both installed simultaneously to be able to do a soft transition and in order to be able to update the ports depending on Qt one-by-one. The goal is to make everything work with Qt 5 at some point in future, but that transition will definitely take time. (2) I would say that using a private prefix for Qt 5 is "good enough" for now unless the software would link against Qt 4 by accident (just because `-I${prefix}/include` contains Qt 4 for example). (3) If everything would stay under `${prefix}` we have problems at least with: * `${prefix}/bin/*` * `${prefix}/include/Qt*` (pointers to `${prefix}/Library/Frameworks/Qt*.framework/Headers`) * `${prefix}/include/Qt/*.h` * `${prefix}/Library/Frameworks/Qt*.framework/Versions/Current` * `${prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/*.pc` * `${prefix}/lib/*.(dylib|la|prl)` (some of them links to `${prefix}/Library/Frameworks/Qt*.framework/Qt*`) I have a feeling that moving these files around kind of defeats the purpose of having these files there in the first place (and having both in a private folder would be just as fine). But if someone can find a solution, that would be great. For the moment it would probably be acceptable to keep Qt 4 as the official version for a while, but put Qt to a private location (specified in the `PortGroup` and easily accessible via some variables), so that port maintainers could test their packages. What I don't know is whether this can be achieved without Qt 4 interfering. So if (2) and (3) are not easily doable, we might have to go for (1). Of course if anyone is brave enough to port everything to Qt 5 at once it would be ok to make a drastic move to Qt 5 only. But that would probably take too much effort. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44193#comment:4> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X