On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:14:29AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > Dominique Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Brian Nelson writes: > > > >>>> IMO, the reason for the missing files is the ridiculous number of > >>>> superfluous packages Qt has been split into. Is it really > >>>> necessary to have libqt3-mt-dev, libqt3-headers, > >>>> libqt3-compat-headers, qt3-dev-tools, qt3-designer, qt3-apps-dev, > >>>> qt3-linguist, qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, qt3-dev-tools-embedded, > >>>> qt3-dev-tools-compat, etc. (I think I even left some out!) in > >>>> separate packages? Just a single -dev package seems sufficient to > >>>> me. > >>> > >>>> It makes me wonder what kind of a bribe it took to get this past > >>>> the ftp-masters. > >>> > >>> Are you sure you know what you're talking about ? I can think of a > >>> lot of situations in which those tools are used in various > >>> different combinations, so that it really is a good idea to have > >>> them in separate packages. > > > >> Huh? That's absolutely no reason to put a bunch of small binaries > >> in separate packages. You gain nothing except unnecessary > >> complexity. > > > > Let's see. I don't consider these small binaries: > > qt3-assistant_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 229K > > qt3-designer_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 3,9M > > qt3-linguist_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 324K > > qt3-dev-tools_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 1,2M > > qt3-dev-tools-embedded_3%3a3.3.2-0pre1_i386.deb 273K > > I simply can not accept this massive amount of bullshit anymore. I didn't ask for an argument; you did, so here we go.
> >> Also, you must only be talking about qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, > >> qt3-linguist, and qt3-designer. > > > >> What you've said doesn't apply to headers, and who the hell knows > >> what the difference between qt3-dev-tools, qt3-apps-dev, etc. is > >> anyway? > > > > I do, and you would too if you had taken the time to look at the > > package descriptions: > > > > qt3-dev-tools: a number of binaries ( note: architecture dependent, so > > you don't want them in an arch independent headers > > package ) for normal development with Qt > > Who said we need a arch-indep headers package anyway? I don't know of > any other library packages in Debian that have one. Hell, I co-maintain > one, if not the, largest library package in Debian and it doesn't have > headers split into a separate package. > Ralf and I adopted Ivan E. Moores idea to have non-mt and mt packges since it is important to provide both flavours. > > Anyway, if you're going to be making claims like this, it would be a > > lot more useful if you could provide us with a proposal about how you > > would like to see the package split up, so we could consider this in a > > useful manner. > > As I said before, I think most stuff should be moved into a single -dev > package. For a working example, see the packages at > http://bignachos.com/~nelson/debian . > BRUAHAHAHAHA. Okay, I recovered from my laugh-attack, so, let's see. Let's just look at the .changes-file for a beginning. "Removed the non-threaded library and plugins" -- right. Who gives a damn on who needs these libraries? Let's just remove them to have Qt3 split into less packages! "- Removed embedded tools" "- Removed old compatibility tools" Yeah, of course. Give a damn on people who need these tools; who rely on that they are included in the Debian packages because they are included in the upstream's source tarball. "* Don't enable xcursor support (Closes: #246198)" Right. Because it's broken, we disable it instead of finding and fixing the problem. Disabling is massively easier than fixing anyway; only needs some letters in debian/rules! Let's summarize what you can bring to the table: Packages that appear to be structured less complicated and which turn out to be nothing but castrated if you look at them closely. And some wild number games, of course. I don't know what your original intention was but to me it seems that all you do is trolling to gain attention. Don't expect me to treat you with only a little amount of seriousness; don't expect me to deal with you anymore. > > So ultimately we're talking about a 2M difference for a developers and > 600K for users or buildds, with the trade-off being far simpler packages > (8 packages vs. 23 or whatever the current number is) with fewer bugs > (no missing files). > > -- > You win again, gravity! -- .''`. Martin Loschwitz Debian GNU/Linux developer : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'` http://www.madkiss.org/ people.debian.org/~madkiss/ `- Use Debian GNU/Linux 3.0! See http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
