On 20 January 2013 06:59, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2013/1/19 Michał Górny
>> Just a completely different idea -- how about putting those libraries
>> into different categories appropriate to the topic? We have a bunch of
>> categories like dev-libs, media-libs, etc. -- and I wonder how many of
>>
On 20 January 2013 05:03, Philip Webb wrote:
> 130119 Ben de Groot wrote:
>> 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.
On 19 January 2013 23:38, Michael Weber wrote:
> We have a fixed number of exact 2 tags (foo and bar),
> This limitation has proven it's usability in the past of Gentoo, but
> there are reasons to break it up (Like making up funny points like regex
> and it has always been this way). foo-bar-baz m
2013/1/19 Michał Górny
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800
> 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 gr
2013/1/19 Michael Weber
>
> But please don't double the qt.
>
> yay for lib-cute/qt-core
130119 Ben de Groot wrote:
> 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.
They are also encountered by users when updating K
On Jan 19, 2013 5:19 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a
>> hyphen for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up.
>> qt-core just doesn't make sense if it applies to more tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/01/13 05:56 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>
> And if you really must, is emerge qt/gui so much more difficult
> than emerge qt-gui?
>
..no, but having to specify media-libs/phonon now because qt/phonon
conflicts (just one of probably many example
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800
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 te
On 01/19/2013 03:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> 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.
And so is vim, which is used as
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.
If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category (at least
there seems to
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it?
I was thinking about that. A lib-misc, lib-x11, lib-qt, and so on
organization actually makes more sense to me than what we're doing
with libs in general right now. B
On 01/19/2013 09:39 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen
>> for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. qt-core
>> just doesn't make sense if it applies to more
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen
> for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. qt-core
> just doesn't make sense if it applies to more than just qt-core.
I actually love x11-qt as an optio
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Some of us, including me, are also wondering why a separate category
> is needed — while you might be over the median, it doesn't mean it's
> that much more compelling — indeed my feeling is that it would be an
> useless small category,
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> The thing is you would practically never have to do this. Users
> install apps that have a number of qt modules as dependencies. These
> qt modules in turn cannot be updated individually (unless there is an
> ebuild revision bump), but will b
On 17 January 2013 22:45, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> How many packages are we talking about? Especially if you don't want qwt
> to join there, I assume we're way below 50? If so I would vote nay to
> any new category at all, to be honest.
Roughly 40 is the current estimate. This is above the med
On 19 January 2013 03:22, Christoph Junghans wrote:
> 2013/1/17 Ben de Groot :
>> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
>> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
>> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means
>> x11-libs
2013/1/17 Ben de Groot :
> Hi guys,
>
> 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 opin
On 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages
> in x11-libs.
How many?
└> ls -d /usr/portage/x11-libs/qt* | wc -l
22
> We, the Gentoo Qt team, are of the opinion that the time has
> come to split all these out into their own cat
On 18 January 2013 04:24, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2013 14:44:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500 James Cloos wrote:
>> > > "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
>> > CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying
>> > CM> your p
On Thursday 17 January 2013 14:44:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500 James Cloos wrote:
> > > "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
> > CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying
> > CM> your package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an '
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013, 14:57:16 schrieb Ben de Groot:
>>
>> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
>> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
>> also be dropping the qt-
Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013, 14:57:16 schrieb Ben de Groot:
>
> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means
> x11-libs/qt-core will be m
2013/1/17 Chris Reffett :
> but I think dropping the qt- prefix
> will lead to overly generic/already existing package names: "gui"
> "declarative" "dbus" "core" "opengl" etc. I don't see any value from
> dropping the prefix that would justify this.
+1.
--
Georg Rudoy
LeechCraft — http://leec
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500
James Cloos wrote:
> > "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
> CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying
> CM> your package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an 'ls'.
>
> ls(1) isn't relevant. find(1) is. grep(1) is. There a
> "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
CM> That's what's known as "doing it wrong". You should be querying your
CM> package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an 'ls'.
ls(1) isn't relevant. find(1) is. grep(1) is. There are others.
Using the 'package managers' isn't very helpful. Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/17/2013 08:57 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> 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 pa
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:03:36 -0500
> James Cloos wrote:
>> Every current category matches /^[a-z]+-[a-z]+$/. With the possible
>> exception of adding moving from [a-z]+ to [a-z0-9]+, that shoud
>> remain.
>
> Untrue. 'virtual' doesn't. I
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:03:36 -0500
James Cloos wrote:
> Every current category matches /^[a-z]+-[a-z]+$/. With the possible
> exception of adding moving from [a-z]+ to [a-z0-9]+, that shoud
> remain.
Untrue. 'virtual' doesn't. If you want the rules for what constitutes a
valid category name, con
> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
BdG> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
BdG> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
BdG> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means
BdG> x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:05:03 -0500
James Cloos wrote:
> > "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
> CM> Which is a good thing, since it will force people to stop making
> CM> incorrect assumptions.
>
> No, its a bad thing because it makes it harder to grep out the non
> category dirs.
That's what's
> "CM" == Ciaran McCreesh writes:
CM> Which is a good thing, since it will force people to stop making
CM> incorrect assumptions.
No, its a bad thing because it makes it harder to grep out the non
category dirs.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:05:53 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that
> > naming the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We
> > will then also be dropping the qt- prefix in package n
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, 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 o
On 17/01/2013 15:33, Ben de Groot wrote:
> But is there any reason other than "assumption" to stick to foo-bar
> category names?
Well I for one have used this before when I wanted to get informative
build logs: virtual/ packages have no build logs whatsoever so I don't
care to grep for them. It mi
On 17/01/13 15:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
Please let us know your thought on this.
+1
On 17 January 2013 22:09, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> This category is
>> to be used for the various modules and applications that belong to the
>> upstream Qt Framework only (these include e.g. assistant and
>> linguist). Third-party applications should remain i
On 17 January 2013 22:05, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
>> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
>> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This m
Il 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot ha scritto:
Hi guys,
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
-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.)
- --
Alexander
alexan...@plaimi.net
http://p
Ben de Groot schrieb:
> This category is
> to be used for the various modules and applications that belong to the
> upstream Qt Framework only (these include e.g. assistant and
> linguist). Third-party applications should remain in the current
> categories.
So where do modules go that come from up
On 17/01/2013 14:57, Ben de Groot wrote:
> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming
> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then
> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means
> x11-libs/qt-core will be moved to qt/core, and so o
Much nicer naming IMHO.
+1 from me.
Hi guys,
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 that the time has
come to split
46 matches
Mail list logo
