On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 01:06:39AM +0200, David Craven wrote: > I left the qtbase string as documentation, as has been done in other > places. Do you think it's a bad idea (to not use the same string as > the package name)?
My understanding is that the 'qt' package is not the same thing as the 'qtbase' package. 'qt' is the all-in-one Qt, whereas 'qtbase' is the base package of the modularized Qt that Efraim has been working on. So, I do think it's a good idea to use that string as documentation but, in this case, I think that using "qtbase" is inappropriate. What do you think?
