On Samstag, 17. Mai 2003 01:59, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 08:50:58AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: > > So it seems we're giving up completely on the idea of some sane system > > for having debian install the compatibility Qt headers by default just > > like *every* other Qt installation? > > > > I realise I brought this up several times some months ago, and it did > > seem IIRC that it was generally agreed upon that it was a Good Thing to > > have debian users get the same set of compatibility headers that > > everyone else gets, and that the debian package management system was > > *not* meant to be abused to punish users into hassling developers to > > write non-legacy code. > > > > I was quieted by the fact that Ralf explained the dependencies would be > > patched in Qt 3.1.2, and that the appropriate patches were sitting in > > CVS in qt-copy/debian. > > > > It seems that not only were these patches never uploaded to sid in the > > meantime, but now they've actually been removed from CVS altogether. > > I have to say that I agree 100% with Ben on this one. In ye olde > Utopiane worlde, we'd be able to deprecate headers and draw the line in > the sane, but we can't. It's not our call, it's upstream's call, and we > shouldn't be placing further arbitrary restrictions. I've talked with Martin yesterday and he updated all his changes into qt-copy/debian that he had so far. I updated one of the patches needed for Qt 3.2 already. About those stupid headers - is Recommends enough to make everyone stop nagging ? In the meanwhile unstable is in a state where the maintainers know where to use compat-headers and where they don't have to (which is what was desired). Ralf > > -d -- We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralf Nolden nolden@kde.org The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org
Attachment:
pgptcOuWP1ugB.pgp
Description: signature