Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages
Dominique Devriese <devriese@kde.org> writes:
> Brian Nelson writes:
>
>> Christopher Martin <christopher.martin@utoronto.ca> writes:
>>> On June 13, 2004 12:44, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>>> For one, they're missing the qaccessible.h header. It appears to
>>>> missing from the 3.2.3 packages as well.
>>>
>>> Martin, there seem to be a few other bugs open regarding missing
>>> files. qvfbhdr.h is missing - #182366. tabwidget.png should also
>>> allegedly exist
>>> - #195189. And someone raised a question over the location of
>>> # headers
>>> under /u/i/qt3, that I'm not qualified to answer fully, but thought
>>> I'd mention - please see #226990. There are yet more reports on
>>> missing headers, but these are the ones that are still relevant,
>>> from what I can tell.
>
>> IMO, the reason for the missing files is the ridiculous number of
>> superfluous packages Qt has been split into. Is it really necessary
>> to have libqt3-mt-dev, libqt3-headers, libqt3-compat-headers,
>> qt3-dev-tools, qt3-designer, qt3-apps-dev, qt3-linguist,
>> qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, qt3-dev-tools-embedded,
>> qt3-dev-tools-compat, etc. (I think I even left some out!) in
>> separate packages? Just a single -dev package seems sufficient to
>> me.
>
>> It makes me wonder what kind of a bribe it took to get this past the
>> ftp-masters.
>
> Are you sure you know what you're talking about ? I can think of
> a lot of situations in which those tools are used in various different
> combinations, so that it really is a good idea to have them in
> separate packages.
Huh? That's absolutely no reason to put a bunch of small binaries in
separate packages. You gain nothing except unnecessary complexity.
Also, you must only be talking about qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig,
qt3-linguist, and qt3-designer. What you've said doesn't apply to
headers, and who the hell knows what the difference between
qt3-dev-tools, qt3-apps-dev, etc. is anyway?
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: