Chris Cheney <email@example.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 07:27:54AM +0100, Ralf Nolden wrote: >> Yes, there is. First of all, there are people using this stuff to develop >> applications with. If you give them all available headers you will end up >> having most apps accidentally using compatibility headers which will sooner >> or later be drawn away by Trolltech. The reason why the plugin-headers >> package is there is that if you build a package that derives from (mostly >> stlyes) plugins, you will get a linker error at the end. In this case the >> error will show up much earlier during the compile and upstream or the >> author/developer will know that he did something wrong - deriving from a >> plugin where he should have used the plugin interface. > > So most upstream authors have no clue how to write apps in Qt and don't > look at the vast amount of documentation that come with it? No, it means that most upstream authors don't expect styles to be built as plugins. Trolltech's documentation does *not* say that deriving from a plugin is wrong. Debian and Mandrake (I think) are the only distributions to build styles as plugins, so many upstream authors don't even realize the problem. Of course, there isn't a good reason that I know of to build styles as plugins in any case, other than satisfying Martin's need to make the Qt packages as complicated and difficult to work with as possible. >> Most problems of the current Qt packages came up because the packagers are no >> developers. > > According to you, if developers were packagers the debs would be in even > poorer shape since they apparently don't even read the documentation for > the toolkit they are using... 8-) Bullshit. At least they'd be able to realize that their packages are completely broken, which the current maintainer is apparently incapable of. >> One oddity left is that when I need libqt3-mt-dev I have to download a package >> that to 99% consists of a static library of 10 Mb size. This is completely >> rediculous compared to what I want. I suggested packaging the libqt.a and >> libqt-mt.a into a libqt3-static-dev package but Martin still refuses "because >> the policy says to put it in the -dev package". >> >> I can't argue against stubbornness, I can just say that two weeks discussing >> about every single file in this package drives me nuts, especially if debian >> people never use what they package and thus will never gain any clue what to >> do with it best. > > Yes, Martin is correct about that being a violation of policy, most > (all?) other libraries don't split their headers into a bunch of > individual packages either, but ymmv. Where in policy does it say that? There's already a couple packages that package their static libraries separately (octave2.0-staticlibs for example). -- 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?
Description: PGP signature