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.
45 matches
Mail list logo
