-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2003 10:40, Brian Nelson wrote: > Considering libqt is about 5.5 megs, an extra .5 meg doesn't seem so bad > to me considering the trouble it saves. Besides, is anyone that uses Qt > apps, like KDE, seriously concerned about .5 meg of bloat? It is.
> Sure, but that doesn't mean Debian's Qt packages have to suffer as a > result of TT's vagueness. That's what we fixed now. Just put all the headers in one package, > package only the mt lib, build styles statically, and end the madness. I assume you don't want to think about things that we cleared and still don't seem to have a clear insight into the package itself. In that case I would really appreciate to stop ranting. If Qt packaging is so easy to you, go ahead and take maintainership. You'll see what you'll get. > The only place I can find that mentions packaging static libraries in > the -dev package is libpkg-guide, and that documentation is by no means > authoritative. I don't see why they should be included at all. That's what I'm asking, too. I would be very much in favour of dropping a static qt anyway. I think providing a static version is quite optional. If some > third party vendor needs to link statically with Qt for whatever reason > (Opera?), they can compile the libs statically themselves. Which TT customers do anyway. Ralf - -- We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralf Nolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+QN4/u0nKi+w1Ky8RAlxkAKCZi7alonBRdEHDWbQEknB+eLJoaACgi5yr JsGL3rGJods0WGRKdBJLdz4= =FuJH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
