Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages

[Dominique Devriese <dominique.devriese@student.kuleuven.ac.be>]

Brian Nelson writes:

>>> 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.

> Huh?  That's absolutely no reason to put a bunch of small binaries
> in separate packages.  You gain nothing except unnecessary
> complexity.

Let's see.  I don't consider these small binaries:
qt3-assistant_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb          229K
qt3-designer_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb           3,9M
qt3-linguist_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb           324K
qt3-dev-tools_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb          1,2M
qt3-dev-tools-embedded_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 273K

> Also, you must only be talking about qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig,
> qt3-linguist, and qt3-designer.  

> What you've said doesn't apply to headers, and who the hell knows
> what the difference between qt3-dev-tools, qt3-apps-dev, etc. is
> anyway?

I do, and you would too if you had taken the time to look at the
package descriptions:

qt3-dev-tools: a number of binaries ( note: architecture dependent, so
               you don't want them in an arch independent headers
               package ) for normal development with Qt
qt3-apps-dev: stuff you need when you're going to be doing special
              things with embedding Qt designer and stuff.  Almost
              noone needs this.

Anyway, if you're going to be making claims like this, it would be a
lot more useful if you could provide us with a proposal about how you
would like to see the package split up, so we could consider this in a
useful manner.

cheers
domi