[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:

>>>> Summarizing: Qt is a very complex package, and there are good
>>>> reasons for most, if not all split-ups.
>>> I'm still unconvinced of that.
>> Fine, I'm not going to keep arguing with you over this.  IMHO, as
>> you've demonstrated above, you don't seem to know Qt thoroughly
>> enough to be able to understand the need for the structure of its
>> packages.
> I'm confident I know Qt very well for standard application
> development and I don't see anything above that demonstrates
> otherwise.  

Yeah, firstly, I've prolly been too harsh above.  Sorry. I guess it's
my natural geek tendency to flame coming up :s

What I was talking about is that you didn't seem to know what Qt
Assistant is intended to be used for, what qt-apps-dev could be used
for, even when the package description stated it pretty clearly etc,
and the radicalness of your proposals.

About the issues we were discussing:

* get rid of non-mt packages
  -> Could save quite some buildd time, but might upset some people
     still depending on it.  I wouldn't do it yet for Qt 3.0
* get rid of embedded stuff
  -> prolly not a good idea, you seem to have changed your mind here
     too or I misunderstood you in the first place.
* get rid of libqt3-compat-headers
  -> I disagreed, but Ben convinced me.
* move a lot of dev stuff into one -dev package
  -> Don't really like the idea, since it makes all people install
  more stuff they don't need, and I still seem to miss the advantage.

> I've already admitted to not knowing anything about embedded stuff.
> Which is fine no one actually uses all of Qt, so no one is qualified
> to be the sole maintainer of the package.  It should be
> group-maintained.

FWIW, I would very much like to see Qt group-maintained, if at all

I'm going to abstain from further comments, as I really should
be studying...


Reply to: