On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:08:52AM +0200, Dominique Devriese wrote: > Brian Nelson writes: > > >> 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. > > It's not a requirement, but it's generally a good thing to do, to save > buildd time for arch-dep packages. Please read the packaging policy > if you need more information. I'm not going to criticise your > packaging of ace here. How does having part of the package arch-indep actually save any significant amount of time? Instead, it actually wastes a lot of buildd time since by having part of the dev packaging be indep it causes anything building against qt to ftbfs anytime a new qt is uploaded. This is because the version of the arch-dep -dev package depends on is no longer available until it has been built on that arch. Some people don't believe this is an issue but it has bitten KDE _many_ times. This problem is going to have to be solved from an archive standpoint before multiarch is started but right now it is already a very big issue with qt. > You also seem to ignore non-multithreaded use of the qt libraries, > even though there are still applications depending on this. You seem > to not want to support embedded cross-development, again without > considering people who need this. There are only two packages that use non-multithreaded version and could probably use it if we kicked their maintainers. qterm vipec Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature