Re: Rethinking Qt headers (should the header packages be recombined?)
> Ben, I always appreciate your work but I think from the developers perspective
> you just need to have a way to get the legacy headers out of the way. And the
> README.Debian explains *in detail* that if an app doesn't compile, install
> the compat-headers package. That's that, and that was a goal that was
> desired. So if we revert this and put the legacy headers back, even change
> them, which I consider to be even more evil than anything else because you're
> supposed to package the code and not to put your own stuff into it, then the
> whole point of 4 weeks of hard work was pretty pointless.
>
> It's as simple as reading README.Debian if something doesn't compile.
hahahahahahha...that's a funny statement. I believe that if we were to
pole folks out there the README.Debian would be the last place anyone
would look to find out why something didn't compile. They would first
assume that they had either the wrong version or that the package they
downloaded was incomplete.
If putting the answer in the README.Debian was the proper way to go then
we could just put a note in there telling people that using the compat headers
was wrong in the first place and tell them how to fix it. This would save
on having yet another package in Debian that only contains a very small
amount of files and size.
4 weeks either way doesn't matter. I've put months of work into packages
in the past doing what I thought was the right thing to do only to have
others revert it, change it, or convince me that i was doing it the wrong
way (or that there was a better way).
I have to agree with Ben on this one. There are more negative aspects of
breaking out these headers than positive. I also think that when a user
(note user, not developer) wants to build a Qt based app they would assume
that installing the -dev package would be all they would need. Makes sense.
It's not the users job to try to figure header issues out.
Ivan
--
----------------
Ivan E. Moore II
rkrusty@tdyc.com
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Reply to: