| 1 |
On 18 January 2013 04:24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 17 January 2013 14:44:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500 James Cloos wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > >>>>> "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes: |
| 5 |
>> > CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying |
| 6 |
>> > CM> your package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an 'ls'. |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > ls(1) isn't relevant. find(1) is. grep(1) is. There are others. |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> > Using the 'package managers' isn't very helpful. They generally do |
| 11 |
>> > everything poorly. And usually **s*l*o*w*l*y**, if they compile at |
| 12 |
>> > all. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> On the other hand, they do things correctly, which your approach |
| 15 |
>> doesn't. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> > I can't even remember every time I've needed to use a regex, glob or |
| 18 |
>> > other pattern match where the fact that the real categories had a dash |
| 19 |
>> > made things easier and faster. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> But wrong. If you want wrong answers quickly, cat /dev/urandom. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> and breaking people for no good reason is just that -- not a good reason. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> is code that makes this assumption kind of crappy ? yes. is this new |
| 26 |
> proposal a compelling use case for breaking that (pretty common) assumption ? |
| 27 |
> no. there's no real technical overhead to have new qt categories follow the |
| 28 |
> existing practice. |
| 29 |
> -mike |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I also like the current style for categories (foo-bar) and I also like |
| 32 |
the "qt-framework" or "qt-libs" proposals but now that I think about |
| 33 |
it again, I see no urgent reason to move away from x11-libs. I also |
| 34 |
dislike the idea to drop the qt-* prefix from the Qt modules. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
Archives