| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/17/2013 08:57 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hi guys, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library |
| 8 |
> packages in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a |
| 9 |
> lot further in modularization, so we expect the number of packages |
| 10 |
> to grow much more. We, the Gentoo Qt team, are of the opinion that |
| 11 |
> the time has come to split all these out into their own category. |
| 12 |
> This category is to be used for the various modules and |
| 13 |
> applications that belong to the upstream Qt Framework only (these |
| 14 |
> include e.g. assistant and linguist). Third-party applications |
| 15 |
> should remain in the current categories. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that |
| 18 |
> naming the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We |
| 19 |
> will then also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This |
| 20 |
> means x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core, and so on. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Please let us know your thought on this. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
+1ish. I'm all for a new category (specific naming scheme to be |
| 25 |
bikeshedded, no preference there), but I think dropping the qt- prefix |
| 26 |
will lead to overly generic/already existing package names: "gui" |
| 27 |
"declarative" "dbus" "core" "opengl" etc. I don't see any value from |
| 28 |
dropping the prefix that would justify this. |
| 29 |
Chris Reffett |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlD4RbIACgkQ23laikJhg1SUngCfatp7/zOP4iGym3sitfH6xpA6 |
| 35 |
mPAAn2+4HWyOF5+qj2DNIn9IjflOXYc4 |
| 36 |
=TuOb |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives