| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013, 14:57:16 schrieb Ben de Groot: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming |
| 6 |
>> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then |
| 7 |
>> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means |
| 8 |
>> x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core, and so on. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Please don't. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This is not about standards, but about consistency. About everyone else uses |
| 14 |
> the two-part category-names witha-dash. Why can't you? It is what I would |
| 15 |
> immediately expect, instead of a "hyper-toplevel" "qt". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> My suggestion would be qt-base (analogous to kde-base, gnome-base, gnustep- |
| 18 |
> base, lxde-base, and xfce-base) for everything that is part of the main Qt |
| 19 |
> release. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'd actually argue that qt/core qt/base and other such 'package names' |
| 22 |
are in fact a better reason why this is a terrible idea. Remember that |
| 23 |
in some places (like emerge) the category is optional. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
emerge core base => not obvious |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Andreas K. Huettel |
| 33 |
> Gentoo Linux developer |
| 34 |
> dilfridge@g.o |
| 35 |
> http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
| 36 |
> |
Archives