Re: BUG: libkdeprint_management.la missing in kdelibs4
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?
> 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-)
> 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.
Chris
Reply to: