| 1 |
130119 Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? |
| 4 |
> These are libraries and applications |
| 5 |
> that are used by developers of end-user applications. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
They are also encountered by users when updating KDE etc. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category |
| 10 |
> -- at least there seems to be some quite vocal opposition -- , |
| 11 |
> then dev-qt is in my eyes the next best alternative. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
'qt' alone is inconsistent with the rest of the tree. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> A third option we came up with is qt-framework. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Too long to type & again no parallel in the existing tree. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Somewhat comparable categories in the current tree |
| 20 |
> are dev-dotnet and gnustep-{base,libs}. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Flame-eyes' suggestion is simple, consistent & involves least change : |
| 23 |
'x11-qt/qt-core' 'x11-qt/qt-gui' etc. Please do it like that. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
========================,,============================================ |
| 27 |
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb |
| 28 |
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto |
| 29 |
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca |
Archives