On Sun May 29 11:17:16 UTC 2016, Kevin Krammer wrote: > > They suggested me to upload the library to the "Qt Components" section > > of http://qt-apps.org/ , so I did it, and the library is now available > > to other developers. > > Wouldn't it make much more sense to register it with inqlude.org as a > central place for Qt libraries/components instead of spreading over many > sites?
Well, it has been already discussed in the thread. Main points I see are: * inqlude.org seems to be for big libraries, not for small contributed libraries. * inqlude.org seems to be only an index, it doesn't store the software (it is not a repository), so developers can't upload the libraries to it, they need to upload the libraries to other place and then add the link to the index. It means more work for developers. * All of https://www.opendesktop.org/ pages ( http://qt-apps.org/ , http://kde-apps.org/ , http://kde-look.org/ , http://gtk-apps.org/ , etc ) share the same structure and behabior, so they are familiar for the developers that already have uploaded an app to them. * Aditionally, developers can (re)use their account in all of the https://www.opendesktop.org/ pages, so no need of extra registrations. > > Anyway, in the debate at Plasma-devel mailing list, I pointed out two > > things: > > - Having all types of libraries in one or two sections ("Qt Components" > > and "Qt Widgets") is not good, because it will be hard for developers > > to browse/find libraries. > > Those should probably filter criteria instead of categories. > A developer might be looking for a functional block, or look for > something for UI, etc. Currently https://www.opendesktop.org/ pages have sections and subsections to classify/browse the software (they are on the left column of the pages). My proposal reuses the current behabior of those pages, to reduce the effort, that's why I propose sections and subsections. The optimal solution would be, as you say, to create a completely new page from scratch, with a search/browse engine by criteria (like in http://stackoverflow.com/ ). But I have prioritized the reduction of effort required to create the new page, just by cloning another page in http://stackoverflow.com/ . > > For the first solution (add more sections to http://qt-apps.org and > > http://kde-apps.org/ ), I would propose the following: > > - http://qt-apps.org/ : > > - Create a new section "Qt Libraries". (sections are on the left column > > of the page) > > - Create the following subsections under the "Qt Libraries" section: > > Qt 5 C++ libs > > Qt 5 QML libs > > Qt 5 C++/QML libs > > Qt 4 C++ libs > > Qt 4 QML libs > > Qt 4 C++/QML libs > > Version should also be a filter criteria instead of a categorie, IMHO. > Also why make the language the deciding criteria instead of what the > component is for? I.e. is it for UI or is to for networking, etc. Well, it is a matter of taste, I prefer to click on "Plasma 5" section, then click on "Plasma 5 QML libs", and then I'm sure that all of the libraries shown will work with my plasmoid. Certainly, filtering also by version could help, but currently https://www.opendesktop.org/ pages don't have subsubsections, so the version of the library would have to go in subsections, that would multiply the subsections shown, and probably it would overload the structure. I made my proposal of sections and subsections based on the language, and nobody said anything, but of course it is open to suggestions and contributions. So you can make a detailed proposal of sections and subsections, if you wish. (if so, please keep it complatible with current https://www.opendesktop.org/ pages structure, to reduce the effort). Thank you kdea _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel