Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages
Martin Loschwitz <madkiss@debian.org> writes:
>> >> 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
>>
>> Who said we need a arch-indep headers package anyway? I don't know of
>> any other library packages in Debian that have one. Hell, I co-maintain
>> one, if not the, largest library package in Debian and it doesn't have
>> headers split into a separate package.
>>
> Ralf and I adopted Ivan E. Moores idea to have non-mt and mt packges since
> it is important to provide both flavours.
Back when Ivan was the maintainer, the multi-threaded version was new,
experimental, and possibly unstable, so it made sense to maintain two
versions.
However, this is no longer the case, so I question whether the
single-threaded libraries serve any useful purpose.
>> > 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.
>>
>> As I said before, I think most stuff should be moved into a single -dev
>> package. For a working example, see the packages at
>> http://bignachos.com/~nelson/debian .
>>
> BRUAHAHAHAHA. Okay, I recovered from my laugh-attack, so, let's see. Let's
> just look at the .changes-file for a beginning.
>
> "Removed the non-threaded library and plugins" -- right. Who gives a damn
> on who needs these libraries? Let's just remove them to have Qt3 split into
> less packages!
>
> "- Removed embedded tools"
> "- Removed old compatibility tools"
>
> Yeah, of course. Give a damn on people who need these tools; who rely on
> that they are included in the Debian packages because they are included
> in the upstream's source tarball.
How useful are the old compatibility tools these days, considering Qt
3.0 was released years ago? Those tools aren't built by Qt by default
and any code that is still maintained would have been ported to Qt3 long
ago.
The embedded tools I didn't build because I don't know shit about them
and would need to research them first.
In any case, I don't see any reason why both of these toolsets couldn't
be merged into qt3-dev-tools or wherever.
> "* Don't enable xcursor support (Closes: #246198)"
>
> Right. Because it's broken, we disable it instead of finding and fixing the
> problem. Disabling is massively easier than fixing anyway; only needs some
> letters in debian/rules!
Hey, it was a quick fix to get the package to build. I did say that I
didn't consider the packages fit for release, and this was one of the
reasons.
> Let's summarize what you can bring to the table: Packages that appear to be
> structured less complicated and which turn out to be nothing but castrated
> if you look at them closely. And some wild number games, of course. I don't
> know what your original intention was but to me it seems that all you do is
> trolling to gain attention.
>
> Don't expect me to treat you with only a little amount of seriousness; don't
> expect me to deal with you anymore.
If your Qt package were properly maintained, I wouldn't bother you with
this. However, I think it's been in quite poor condition for a very
long time now and I don't see them getting any better. Furthermore, you
completely ignore every bug filed against the package. Start
maintaining your package properly before you flame me.
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: