Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 20 January 2013 21:35, Dale wrote:
>> Same here. I have had to re-emerge qt packages several times myself.
>> It seems that when I do, I have to do them all one at a time too.
> In which case you're better off with something like:
>emerge -a1 `eix --only-names -IC qt`
Ben de Groot posted on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:59:49 +0800 as excerpted:
> On 20 January 2013 21:35, Dale wrote:
>> Same here. I have had to re-emerge qt packages several times myself.
>> It seems that when I do, I have to do them all one at a time too.
>
> In which case you're better off with some
On 20 January 2013 21:35, Dale wrote:
> Same here. I have had to re-emerge qt packages several times myself.
> It seems that when I do, I have to do them all one at a time too.
In which case you're better off with something like:
emerge -a1 `eix --only-names -IC qt`
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Duncan wrote:
> Ben de Groot posted on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:24:14 +0800 as excerpted:
>
>> On 20 January 2013 00:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> *** (VERY strongly!) Please avoid namespace pollution! Don't drop the
>>> hyphenated qt-pkg names. As a user, most of the time I DO only re
Ben de Groot posted on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:24:14 +0800 as excerpted:
> On 20 January 2013 00:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> *** (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 packa
On 20 January 2013 17:09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 20/01/13 10:39, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> There is no need for multiple qt categories. We want everything that
>> the upstream Qt Project considers to be part of the Qt Framework to be
>> in one category. Besides that there are only a handful of
On 20/01/13 10:39, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 20 January 2013 15:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Just a user with a suggestion here. Since portage already has kde-base and
kde-misc, why not qt-base and qt-misc (and qt-something is the need arises.)
Qt5 will have standard core modules and extensions.
On 20 January 2013 15:59, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Just a user with a suggestion here. Since portage already has kde-base and
> kde-misc, why not qt-base and qt-misc (and qt-something is the need arises.)
> Qt5 will have standard core modules and extensions. qt-base and qt-misc
> look like the
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
On 17/01/13 15:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages
in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further
in modularization, so we expect the number of packages to grow much
more. We, the Gentoo Qt team, are of the opinion t
Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:14:48 +0800 as excerpted:
> On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer 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.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/01/13 15:25, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Where would you place the 300ish KDE core packages then?
In whatever generic category they belong. I understand that the
monolithic nature makes it difficult from a maintainer POV, but from a
design POV it
On 18/01/2013 01:11, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
- -1 here.
It's a too specific category name. I can appreciate it easing the
headaches for the maintainers, but from a design POV I dislike it.
(For the record I also dislike KDE/GNOME/XFCE-categories
13 matches
Mail list logo
