On 18 January 2013 04:24, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2013 14:44:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500 James Cloos wrote: >> > >>>>> "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes: >> > CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying >> > CM> your package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an 'ls'. >> > >> > ls(1) isn't relevant. find(1) is. grep(1) is. There are others. >> > >> > Using the 'package managers' isn't very helpful. They generally do >> > everything poorly. And usually **s*l*o*w*l*y**, if they compile at >> > all. >> >> On the other hand, they do things correctly, which your approach >> doesn't. >> >> > I can't even remember every time I've needed to use a regex, glob or >> > other pattern match where the fact that the real categories had a dash >> > made things easier and faster. >> >> But wrong. If you want wrong answers quickly, cat /dev/urandom. > > and breaking people for no good reason is just that -- not a good reason. > > is code that makes this assumption kind of crappy ? yes. is this new > proposal a compelling use case for breaking that (pretty common) assumption ? > no. there's no real technical overhead to have new qt categories follow the > existing practice. > -mike
I also like the current style for categories (foo-bar) and I also like the "qt-framework" or "qt-libs" proposals but now that I think about it again, I see no urgent reason to move away from x11-libs. I also dislike the idea to drop the qt-* prefix from the Qt modules. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
