| 1 |
On Jan 19, 2013 5:19 PM, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800 |
| 4 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages |
| 7 |
> > in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further |
| 8 |
> > in modularization, so we expect the number of packages to grow much |
| 9 |
> > more. We, the Gentoo Qt team, are of the opinion that the time has |
| 10 |
> > come to split all these out into their own category. This category is |
| 11 |
> > to be used for the various modules and applications that belong to the |
| 12 |
> > upstream Qt Framework only (these include e.g. assistant and |
| 13 |
> > linguist). Third-party applications should remain in the current |
| 14 |
> > categories. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming |
| 17 |
> > the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then |
| 18 |
> > also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means |
| 19 |
> > x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core, and so on. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Please let us know your thought on this. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Just a completely different idea -- how about putting those libraries |
| 24 |
> into different categories appropriate to the topic? We have a bunch of |
| 25 |
> categories like dev-libs, media-libs, etc. -- and I wonder how many of |
| 26 |
> the Qt libs would fit into each of them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Nope. These modules derive from a single tarball and it makes much more |
| 29 |
sense to put all of them in the same place. |
Archives