On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013, 14:57:16 schrieb Ben de Groot: >> >> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming >> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then >> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means >> x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core, and so on. >> > > Please don't. > > This is not about standards, but about consistency. About everyone else uses > the two-part category-names witha-dash. Why can't you? It is what I would > immediately expect, instead of a "hyper-toplevel" "qt". > > My suggestion would be qt-base (analogous to kde-base, gnome-base, gnustep- > base, lxde-base, and xfce-base) for everything that is part of the main Qt > release.
I'd actually argue that qt/core qt/base and other such 'package names' are in fact a better reason why this is a terrible idea. Remember that in some places (like emerge) the category is optional. emerge core base => not obvious -A > > -- > > Andreas K. Huettel > Gentoo Linux developer > dilfri...@gentoo.org > http://www.akhuettel.de/ >
