Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:14:48 +0800 as excerpted:
> On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about
>> it?
>
> These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of
> end-user applications.
>
> If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category (at least
> there seems to be some quite vocal opposition), then dev-qt is in my
> eyes the next best alternative. A third option we came up with is
> qt-framework.
>
> Somewhat comparable categories in the current tree are dev-dotnet and
> gnustep-{base,libs}.
Despite my interest (kde user), I've stayed out of this until now, as I
figured there were enough others commenting and I didn't have anything
different to say, but...
* In general, yes, I'm in favor of a dedicated qt-* category, but...
*** (VERY strongly!) Please avoid namespace pollution! Don't drop the
hyphenated qt-pkg names. As a user, most of the time I DO only refer to
the package name, and dropping the qt- from qt-core, qt-gui, etc, is WAYYY
too generic to be practical. I for one would be cursing the generic
names every time I had to deal with the package. (Tho it's a kde
upstream issue, the same applies to "the application formerly known as
kcontrol", now the impossibly generic system-settings, and the former
ksysguard, now generically system-monitor. Anyone active on the kde
general or kde linux lists knows I simply refuse to use the generic
names.)
* (Less strongly.) Please keep the hyphenated category name scheme as
well.
* dev-qt seems appropriate.
* qt-base would work too.
* qt-libs or lib-qt, not so much, because there's executables as well.
* x11-qt not so much, as qt5 is no longer x11 limited. Additionally, x11/
xorg will arguably start losing its dominance to wayland in the qt5
timeframe, with qt5 even now having (preliminary?) wayland support I
believe, and at some point, x11-qt may well look rather quaint and
anachronistic, sort of like references to ip-chains or xfree86 do today.
So my vote would be for dev-qt/qt-*. Yes, that's a doubled qt reference
with the category, but in practice, few use the category name unless they
have to anyway, and it sure beats the namespace polluting alternative!
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
