On 20 January 2013 00:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > * In general, yes, I'm in favor of a dedicated qt-* category, but...
Good :-) > *** (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.) And how often do you specifically emerge individual qt modules? These are usually pulled in as dependencies, and the great majority of users do not have to deal with this. (Just emerge smplayer, or emerge kde-meta, or emerge -uD1 @world ...) > * (Less strongly.) Please keep the hyphenated category name scheme as > well. Why? > * dev-qt seems appropriate. Agreed. I think this is the next best option, if plain qt is too controversial. > * qt-base would work too. No, this wouldn't work. Upstream has a qtbase repo that is one of the parts of the Qt Framework as a whole. Using qt-base as a category name could be unnecessarily confusing. > * qt-libs or lib-qt, not so much, because there's executables as well. Agreed. > * 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. Agreed. > 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! Again, I don't think that should be a problem, because people would hardly ever need to deal with qt modules directly. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
