[Bug 979124] Review Request: qbs - Qt Build Suite

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124



--- Comment #36 from Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
> Besides that there is no -java subpkg yet, the Java developer probably will
> install "qbs" and notice that it's incomplete, if qbs-java and other
> subpackages will be needed.
Hm. I think that would work for cpp/qt developers too.

> The Qt Build Suite already depends on Qt and C++, and Qt is based on C++, and
> subpackage qbs-qt requires qbs-cpp too, so splitting off the -qt and -cpp
> subpkgs is questionable already.
Well it only depends on the libraries but not on any development packages.
The qbs-qt and qbs-cpp packages only make a lot of sense if you also install
development packages (either via the repository or by downloading from qt for
example).

> You've created strange dependencies (or lack thereof) already,
Is this referring to the weirdness with the qbsqtprofilesetup lib? Or to the
-qt -cpp subpackages?

> and that could become a mess in future version/feature upgrades.
Hm. At the moment I find the splitting easier than a big package... It is
easier to make changes to it for me. Splitting a package later again will
require a lot more work if it has a lot more modules.

Also when doing changes in one module I find it easier if I can work with a
single subpackage rather than with a big "superpackage".

> Even qbs-doc is just 70 KB and questionable to split of so small
> documentation already.
Hm. I did not put size as my first criteria for the split but the structure of
the architecture.

As you said: If a user finds something missing they would simply install the
qbs-<subject> package which would install anything they needed and they would
be set.

About the qbsqtprofilesetup library: Yes I messed that up. I fixed it now:

SRPM: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/qbs.spec
SPEC: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/qbs-1.2.1-2.fc20.src.rpm

Somehow rpmlint complains about a missing ldconfig post* script. But isn't it
correct the way I did it?

So. About merging the packages... If you insist on it I will merge them... Even
though I do not like the idea...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]