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

Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages

Brian Nelson writes:

> Christopher Martin <christopher.martin@utoronto.ca> writes:
>> On June 13, 2004 12:44, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>> For one, they're missing the qaccessible.h header.  It appears to
>>> missing from the 3.2.3 packages as well.
>> Martin, there seem to be a few other bugs open regarding missing
>> files. qvfbhdr.h is missing - #182366. tabwidget.png should also
>> allegedly exist
>> - #195189. And someone raised a question over the location of
>>   #        headers
>> under /u/i/qt3, that I'm not qualified to answer fully, but thought
>> I'd mention - please see #226990. There are yet more reports on
>> missing headers, but these are the ones that are still relevant,
>> from what I can tell.

> IMO, the reason for the missing files is the ridiculous number of
> superfluous packages Qt has been split into.  Is it really necessary
> to have libqt3-mt-dev, libqt3-headers, libqt3-compat-headers,
> qt3-dev-tools, qt3-designer, qt3-apps-dev, qt3-linguist,
> qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, qt3-dev-tools-embedded,
> qt3-dev-tools-compat, etc. (I think I even left some out!) in
> separate packages?  Just a single -dev package seems sufficient to
> me.

> It makes me wonder what kind of a bribe it took to get this past the
> ftp-masters.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about ?  I can think of
a lot of situations in which those tools are used in various different
combinations, so that it really is a good idea to have them in
separate packages.


Reply to: