On sábado, 15 de setembro de 2012 01.54.29, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > I disagree and I think we ought to think more about them. Especially > > since, > > without my fix, they had to patch Qt. > > This is not what you tried to achieve with the tarball distribution even > when packager(s) asked explicitely so. The packagers were not considered as > said they should all solve on their own when needed.
There's a huge difference between stripping the binaries and the format of the
package. In one case, it's a minor nuisance to some that in no way prevents
work from happening (there's a .gz) and it's quickly going away as technology
improves.
In the other, it's a major problem that requires a non-trivial process of
investigating why the build process produced small debuginfo packages (first
problem: they might not notice the issue), is quite non-standard and, up until
now, required reading the qmake source code to figure out how to patch a
solution.
I'm sure you see the huge gap between those two cases.
If you reply to this email to continue arguing your case, please include the
words, "Yes, I understand they are totally different" before adding your new
arguments.
> Moreover, why would they have to do that if there is an option as planned
> previously?
There was no option previously planned. I'm adding one now. So read what I
said: "without my fix, they had to patch Qt".
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
