Dominique Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Nelson writes: > >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On June 13, 2004 12:44, Brian Nelson wrote: >>>> For one, they're missing the qaccessible.h header. It appears to >>>> missing from the 3.2.3 packages as well. >>> >>> Martin, there seem to be a few other bugs open regarding missing >>> files. qvfbhdr.h is missing - #182366. tabwidget.png should also >>> allegedly exist >>> - #195189. And someone raised a question over the location of >>> # headers >>> under /u/i/qt3, that I'm not qualified to answer fully, but thought >>> I'd mention - please see #226990. There are yet more reports on >>> missing headers, but these are the ones that are still relevant, >>> from what I can tell. > >> IMO, the reason for the missing files is the ridiculous number of >> superfluous packages Qt has been split into. Is it really necessary >> to have libqt3-mt-dev, libqt3-headers, libqt3-compat-headers, >> qt3-dev-tools, qt3-designer, qt3-apps-dev, qt3-linguist, >> qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, qt3-dev-tools-embedded, >> qt3-dev-tools-compat, etc. (I think I even left some out!) in >> separate packages? Just a single -dev package seems sufficient to >> me. > >> It makes me wonder what kind of a bribe it took to get this past the >> ftp-masters. > > Are you sure you know what you're talking about ? I can think of > a lot of situations in which those tools are used in various different > combinations, so that it really is a good idea to have them in > separate packages.
Huh? That's absolutely no reason to put a bunch of small binaries in separate packages. You gain nothing except unnecessary complexity. Also, you must only be talking about qt3-assistant, qt3-qtconfig, qt3-linguist, and qt3-designer. What you've said doesn't apply to headers, and who the hell knows what the difference between qt3-dev-tools, qt3-apps-dev, etc. is anyway? -- You win again, gravity!
