On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> 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 be included in a world update as a > group.
Beside the fact that yes, it happens sometimes that you want to rebuild only one of them, and doing 'emerge gui' is nasty enough, what about dbus? emerge dbus -> which one did you mean now? Yes there's a category, but that's not a good reason to artificially make it more complicated. I'm pretty sure that if a consensus is to be found, it is that 'qt' as a category name, and dropping the 'qt-' prefix, is not seen with favour by other people beside you and whoever you discussed this with. I would thus ask you to drop that idea. 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, especially if you only want to keep the core and it won't ever grow. But I won't stop you if it's going to be qt-core/qt-core as package name.
