| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The thing is you would practically never have to do this. Users |
| 3 |
> install apps that have a number of qt modules as dependencies. These |
| 4 |
> qt modules in turn cannot be updated individually (unless there is an |
| 5 |
> ebuild revision bump), but will be included in a world update as a |
| 6 |
> group. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Beside the fact that yes, it happens sometimes that you want to |
| 9 |
rebuild only one of them, and doing 'emerge gui' is nasty enough, what |
| 10 |
about dbus? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
emerge dbus -> which one did you mean now? Yes there's a category, but |
| 13 |
that's not a good reason to artificially make it more complicated. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm pretty sure that if a consensus is to be found, it is that 'qt' as |
| 16 |
a category name, and dropping the 'qt-' prefix, is not seen with |
| 17 |
favour by other people beside you and whoever you discussed this with. |
| 18 |
I would thus ask you to drop that idea. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Some of us, including me, are also wondering why a separate category |
| 21 |
is needed — while you might be over the median, it doesn't mean it's |
| 22 |
that much more compelling — indeed my feeling is that it would be an |
| 23 |
useless small category, especially if you only want to keep the core |
| 24 |
and it won't ever grow. But I won't stop you if it's going to be |
| 25 |
qt-core/qt-core as package name. |
Archives