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

Re: On the matter of Qt packaging

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:21, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > - 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.

I think that it is our responsibility to do whatever it takes to make software 
work well in Debian.  I think that having separate packages for the old 
compatability code that most people doing new development won't need is a 
good idea.  I hate it when I accidentally use the wrong API...

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

How difficult is it?

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

For a smaller package a policy discussion is appropriate.  For saving me 10 
megs when I do an update there should not be any need of a discussion.  10 
megs is an hour of download on a modem!!!

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Reply to: