Brian Nelson writes: >>>> Summarizing: Qt is a very complex package, and there are good >>>> reasons for most, if not all split-ups. >> >>> I'm still unconvinced of that. >> >> Fine, I'm not going to keep arguing with you over this. IMHO, as >> you've demonstrated above, you don't seem to know Qt thoroughly >> enough to be able to understand the need for the structure of its >> packages. > I'm confident I know Qt very well for standard application > development and I don't see anything above that demonstrates > otherwise.
Yeah, firstly, I've prolly been too harsh above. Sorry. I guess it's my natural geek tendency to flame coming up :s What I was talking about is that you didn't seem to know what Qt Assistant is intended to be used for, what qt-apps-dev could be used for, even when the package description stated it pretty clearly etc, and the radicalness of your proposals. About the issues we were discussing: * get rid of non-mt packages -> Could save quite some buildd time, but might upset some people still depending on it. I wouldn't do it yet for Qt 3.0 personally. * get rid of embedded stuff -> prolly not a good idea, you seem to have changed your mind here too or I misunderstood you in the first place. * get rid of libqt3-compat-headers -> I disagreed, but Ben convinced me. * move a lot of dev stuff into one -dev package -> Don't really like the idea, since it makes all people install more stuff they don't need, and I still seem to miss the advantage. > I've already admitted to not knowing anything about embedded stuff. > Which is fine no one actually uses all of Qt, so no one is qualified > to be the sole maintainer of the package. It should be > group-maintained. FWIW, I would very much like to see Qt group-maintained, if at all possible. I'm going to abstain from further comments, as I really should be studying... cheers domi