| 1 |
On 19 January 2013 23:38, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> We have a fixed number of exact 2 tags (foo and bar), |
| 3 |
> This limitation has proven it's usability in the past of Gentoo, but |
| 4 |
> there are reasons to break it up (Like making up funny points like regex |
| 5 |
> and it has always been this way). foo-bar-baz might be usefull, too. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's just convention, not a limitation. We already have virtual/ |
| 8 |
which breaks the convention. There is nothing, except resistance to |
| 9 |
change, that requires us to follow the convention. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> But it's plain redundacy to in insist on *qt*/qt-*. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Agreed, though some people seem to prefer that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Either reject using an appropriate category and place it |
| 16 |
> as misc-randoom/qt-* or use a category and strip the "qt-" prefix. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'm fine with qt/core, my preference would be lib-qt/core or lib/qt-core. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We don't have lib-* categories now, and I don't see why we should use |
| 21 |
qt to start that. Besides, this whole discussion got started initially |
| 22 |
because we were asking ourselves where to place the *applications* |
| 23 |
(designer and linguist) that we want to split off from qt-gui and give |
| 24 |
separate ebuilds. They are not libs, strictly spoken. So that brought |
| 25 |
up, for us in the Qt team, that maybe it's time to have our own |
| 26 |
category. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This is why I prefer plain "qt", or alternatively "dev-qt" or |
| 29 |
"qt-framework". The more concise, the better. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Cheers, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 35 |
Gentoo developer |
| 36 |
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
Archives