Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages
Brian Nelson writes:
>>>> Summarizing: Qt is a very complex package, and there are good
>>>> reasons for most, if not all split-ups.
>>
>>> I'm still unconvinced of that.
>>
>> Fine, I'm not going to keep arguing with you over this. IMHO, as
>> you've demonstrated above, you don't seem to know Qt thoroughly
>> enough to be able to understand the need for the structure of its
>> packages.
> I'm confident I know Qt very well for standard application
> development and I don't see anything above that demonstrates
> otherwise.
Yeah, firstly, I've prolly been too harsh above. Sorry. I guess it's
my natural geek tendency to flame coming up :s
What I was talking about is that you didn't seem to know what Qt
Assistant is intended to be used for, what qt-apps-dev could be used
for, even when the package description stated it pretty clearly etc,
and the radicalness of your proposals.
About the issues we were discussing:
* get rid of non-mt packages
-> Could save quite some buildd time, but might upset some people
still depending on it. I wouldn't do it yet for Qt 3.0
personally.
* get rid of embedded stuff
-> prolly not a good idea, you seem to have changed your mind here
too or I misunderstood you in the first place.
* get rid of libqt3-compat-headers
-> I disagreed, but Ben convinced me.
* move a lot of dev stuff into one -dev package
-> Don't really like the idea, since it makes all people install
more stuff they don't need, and I still seem to miss the advantage.
> I've already admitted to not knowing anything about embedded stuff.
> Which is fine no one actually uses all of Qt, so no one is qualified
> to be the sole maintainer of the package. It should be
> group-maintained.
FWIW, I would very much like to see Qt group-maintained, if at all
possible.
I'm going to abstain from further comments, as I really should
be studying...
cheers
domi
Reply to: