On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bache-Wiig Jens <[email protected] > wrote:
> That said, I am not sure I am entirely ok with this. I would like a single > repository for quality tested Qt libraries and not an arbitrary collection > of open source libraries of various quality that any application could pull > in. I want to be certain that the only thing users will get when they see > that installer screen is a quality tested Qt package. > > If Ministro is not that tool, then perhaps qt-project should make a new > official application under a different name that does this and only this. > Ministro can of course live alongside with it and be an alternative to more > adventurous users. Perhaps a separate repository is needed to distribute > the commercial version of the libraries anyway? > I would rather prefer a generic tool than Qt specific. Can it not be done in a way that the Qt contributors can write a qt specific operation, so essentially "pluginable"? That way, each community could inject their insurance for their projects. > And even if we for some reason do not int the end want to push the Qt > brand with the installer, I think we should at least reconsider the > implications of the brand now that we have the opportunity. I am not a > native english speaker but Ministro sounds unnecessarily foreign to me. > Perhaps something trendy or more developer friendly like "LibKit" or > "Library Store" would do. > Many people would think of real physical libraries with Shakespeare books and so forth at first glance. :] Perhaps simply just to the point: "Dependency Installer/Store"? It could also install a simple cli tool/util/script, and not just library if that is not possible or wished to put into the store if this project leans towards the generic approach. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
