Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote:
> Some of us, including me, are also wondering why a separate category
> is needed — while you might be over the median, it doesn't mean it's
> that much more compelling — indeed my feeling is that it would be an
> useless small category, especially if you only want to keep the core
> and it won't ever grow. But I won't stop you if it's going to be
> qt-core/qt-core as package name.

I tend to agree on leaving qt in the package names themselves for the
reasons that have been raised.

I'm not sure that the category "qt-core" makes sense though.

Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen
for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up.  qt-core
just doesn't make sense if it applies to more than just qt-core.

If the reason for the hyphen is to have some kind of major/minor
category organization then it really makes sense to not create a new
major category just for qt since we'll only have one category for it.
x11-qt or dev-qt are probably the best fits with what is there now.
If we want to create a new major category then maybe some kind of
general category for large development toolkits would make sense, but
I just don't see the demand.

I do support the idea of a new category for qt though, if they really
are going to have upwards of 40 packages.  That would put x11-libs up
to 180 packages, and qt would be 20% of them.

Rich