On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: > Hi ho, it's time for another rant from me regarding the libqt3-compat-headers > split. [...] > (ii) many users have been confused by compile errors, as evidenced by posts > to debian-kde over the past months; > (iii) many people have simply installed libqt3-compat-headers to fix the > problem, rendering the package split meaningless (since legacy headers in > other Qt apps are no longer identified). > (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix. > (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not release-critical. > (iii) Resort to the technical committee. > (iv) Keep the package split and release sarge with a broken Qt development > environment. (v) Talk to the maintainer, see what he thinks. Apparently he's inclined to go with adding a Recommends: libqt3-compat-headers line to the libqt3-mt-dev package. That seems to make sense -- it keeps the split so people who care can tell easily enough, doesn't change upstream in a way that makes the Debian maintainer uncomfortable, and makes it easy for users to get the right headers installed without confusing, Debian-specific errors appearing. > I'd thus like to propose (ii) as the best solution. I realise this is not an > RC bug; Making NMUs for non-RC bugs is fine. Making NMUs that the maintainer doesn't like isn't. Hopefully Madkiss'll have an upload ready by tomorrow's dinstall (26 hours away or so). Apparently some KDE stuff is unnecessarily depending on the compat headers too, which could be fixed. HTH. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature