Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages
Brian Nelson writes:
>> qt3-dev-tools: a number of binaries ( note: architecture dependent,
>> so you don't want them in an arch independent headers package ) for
>> normal development with Qt
> Who said we need a arch-indep headers package anyway? I don't know
> of any other library packages in Debian that have one. Hell, I
> co-maintain one, if not the, largest library package in Debian and
> it doesn't have headers split into a separate package.
It's not a requirement, but it's generally a good thing to do, to save
buildd time for arch-dep packages. Please read the packaging policy
if you need more information. I'm not going to criticise your
packaging of ace here.
>> qt3-apps-dev: stuff you need when you're going to be doing special
>> things with embedding Qt designer and stuff. Almost noone needs
>> this.
> "Special things"? What the hell are "special things"?
As I said: embedding Qt designer and stuff.
> And the package name in no way suggests any difference from
> qt3-dev-tools.
Then you should be complaining about the package name, not the fact
that the package exists.
>> Anyway, if you're going to be making claims like this, it would be
>> a lot more useful if you could provide us with a proposal about how
>> you would like to see the package split up, so we could consider
>> this in a useful manner.
> As I said before, I think most stuff should be moved into a single
> -dev package. For a working example, see the packages at
> http://bignachos.com/~nelson/debian .
> <snip: some usage scenario's>
> So ultimately we're talking about a 2M difference for a developers
> and 600K for users or buildds, with the trade-off being far simpler
> packages (8 packages vs. 23 or whatever the current number is)
Try to think of some more usage scenario's.
For example: you seem to propose to not split out the compat headers,
I think this would be a very bad idea, since I rely on this in my qt
development to make sure I'm not using obsolete qt
headers.
For another thing, Qt assistant is not only a development tool either.
Many Qt apps use it to display their documentation. You would require
every user of such apps to install the entire development package.
You also seem to ignore non-multithreaded use of the qt libraries,
even though there are still applications depending on this. You seem
to not want to support embedded cross-development, again without
considering people who need this.
Summarizing: Qt is a very complex package, and there are good reasons
for most, if not all split-ups. If you want to help, it would imho be
more useful to send Martin patches for some of the real problems, as
he has already requested often.
> with fewer bugs (no missing files).
I don't see a correlation between the number of packages and the
amount of misplaced or forgotten files. As long as the package is
split into more than one package, there can be mistakes in the
splitting I guess.
cheers
domi
Reply to: