| 1 |
Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:14:48 +0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about |
| 5 |
>> it? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of |
| 8 |
> end-user applications. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category (at least |
| 11 |
> there seems to be some quite vocal opposition), then dev-qt is in my |
| 12 |
> eyes the next best alternative. A third option we came up with is |
| 13 |
> qt-framework. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Somewhat comparable categories in the current tree are dev-dotnet and |
| 16 |
> gnustep-{base,libs}. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Despite my interest (kde user), I've stayed out of this until now, as I |
| 19 |
figured there were enough others commenting and I didn't have anything |
| 20 |
different to say, but... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
* In general, yes, I'm in favor of a dedicated qt-* category, but... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
*** (VERY strongly!) Please avoid namespace pollution! Don't drop the |
| 25 |
hyphenated qt-pkg names. As a user, most of the time I DO only refer to |
| 26 |
the package name, and dropping the qt- from qt-core, qt-gui, etc, is WAYYY |
| 27 |
too generic to be practical. I for one would be cursing the generic |
| 28 |
names every time I had to deal with the package. (Tho it's a kde |
| 29 |
upstream issue, the same applies to "the application formerly known as |
| 30 |
kcontrol", now the impossibly generic system-settings, and the former |
| 31 |
ksysguard, now generically system-monitor. Anyone active on the kde |
| 32 |
general or kde linux lists knows I simply refuse to use the generic |
| 33 |
names.) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
* (Less strongly.) Please keep the hyphenated category name scheme as |
| 36 |
well. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
* dev-qt seems appropriate. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
* qt-base would work too. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
* qt-libs or lib-qt, not so much, because there's executables as well. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
* x11-qt not so much, as qt5 is no longer x11 limited. Additionally, x11/ |
| 45 |
xorg will arguably start losing its dominance to wayland in the qt5 |
| 46 |
timeframe, with qt5 even now having (preliminary?) wayland support I |
| 47 |
believe, and at some point, x11-qt may well look rather quaint and |
| 48 |
anachronistic, sort of like references to ip-chains or xfree86 do today. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
So my vote would be for dev-qt/qt-*. Yes, that's a doubled qt reference |
| 51 |
with the category, but in practice, few use the category name unless they |
| 52 |
have to anyway, and it sure beats the namespace polluting alternative! |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 56 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 57 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives