| 1 |
On 20 January 2013 00:48, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> * In general, yes, I'm in favor of a dedicated qt-* category, but... |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Good :-) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> *** (VERY strongly!) Please avoid namespace pollution! Don't drop the |
| 7 |
> hyphenated qt-pkg names. As a user, most of the time I DO only refer to |
| 8 |
> the package name, and dropping the qt- from qt-core, qt-gui, etc, is WAYYY |
| 9 |
> too generic to be practical. I for one would be cursing the generic |
| 10 |
> names every time I had to deal with the package. (Tho it's a kde |
| 11 |
> upstream issue, the same applies to "the application formerly known as |
| 12 |
> kcontrol", now the impossibly generic system-settings, and the former |
| 13 |
> ksysguard, now generically system-monitor. Anyone active on the kde |
| 14 |
> general or kde linux lists knows I simply refuse to use the generic |
| 15 |
> names.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And how often do you specifically emerge individual qt modules? These |
| 18 |
are usually pulled in as dependencies, and the great majority of users |
| 19 |
do not have to deal with this. (Just emerge smplayer, or emerge |
| 20 |
kde-meta, or emerge -uD1 @world ...) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> * (Less strongly.) Please keep the hyphenated category name scheme as |
| 23 |
> well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> * dev-qt seems appropriate. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Agreed. I think this is the next best option, if plain qt is too controversial. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> * qt-base would work too. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
No, this wouldn't work. Upstream has a qtbase repo that is one of the |
| 34 |
parts of the Qt Framework as a whole. Using qt-base as a category name |
| 35 |
could be unnecessarily confusing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> * qt-libs or lib-qt, not so much, because there's executables as well. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Agreed. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> * x11-qt not so much, as qt5 is no longer x11 limited. Additionally, x11/ |
| 42 |
> xorg will arguably start losing its dominance to wayland in the qt5 |
| 43 |
> timeframe, with qt5 even now having (preliminary?) wayland support I |
| 44 |
> believe, and at some point, x11-qt may well look rather quaint and |
| 45 |
> anachronistic, sort of like references to ip-chains or xfree86 do today. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Agreed. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> So my vote would be for dev-qt/qt-*. Yes, that's a doubled qt reference |
| 50 |
> with the category, but in practice, few use the category name unless they |
| 51 |
> have to anyway, and it sure beats the namespace polluting alternative! |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Again, I don't think that should be a problem, because people would |
| 54 |
hardly ever need to deal with qt modules directly. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Cheers, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 60 |
Gentoo developer |
| 61 |
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
Archives