[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On the matter of Qt packaging

Ralf Nolden <nolden@kde.org> writes:

> Here are the issues that are still open:
> - split up libqt3-headers into libqt3-headers and libqt3-compat-headers since 
> about 30% of the Qt-headers are for compatibility to Qt 1.x and 2.x versions 
> and not part of the official Qt3 API anymore. If a packager maintains a 
> package that requires the compat files he should then notify upstream to fix 
> the includes he uses and until then use libqt3-compat-headers in his 
> build-dependencies

I don't think it should be Debian's responsibility to track Trolltech's
API compatibility, especially since many of the current headers support
obsolete features anyway.

Trolltech generally does not maintain complete API compatibility between
major releases, so it's up to upstream authors to target a specific
release of Qt.  If upstream falls inactive, then that software should
just continue to be built with the version of Qt with which it was
targeted, until the old Qt and hence the old software was removed from
the archive.

Debian wouldn't gain much from the effort of splitting the Qt headers,
at the expense of complicating the Qt packages even further.

> - the IMHO more than necessary splitting off of the static libraries libqt.a 
> and libqt-mt.a into a separate package libqt3-static-dev. Each has about 10 
> MB of size and currently cover 99,9% of the size of the libqt3-dev and 
> libqt3-mt-dev packages that are needed for packaging any Qt application. This 
> means that 99,9% of the traffic caused by these -dev packages is wasted, 
> because there is currently absolutely noone that needs static Qt libraries. 
> Besides, static linkage is only done if the symlink to the shared library 
> isn't found either, so a packager/developer who wants to do static linking 
> with Qt needs to manipulate his system anyway with removing the symlinks from 
> libqt3-*dev to the shared libraries. Of course, Martin's objection here is 
> that this is a "debian policy" to always package the static libs with the 
> -dev package, but there are already exceptions where static libs were 
> packaged in a static-dev package in Debian and here it would make sense to do 
> that also.

FYI, this is being discussed on debian-policy as we speak.

My secret to happiness... is that I have a heart of a 12-year-old boy.
It's over here in a jar.  Would you like to see it?

Attachment: pgpcfK_9fhGZc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: