[ITP] qt3-3.3.4

Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net
Thu Sep 29 22:41:00 GMT 2005

Hash: SHA1

Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> First, thank you for packaging this.  I was supposed to do it 2 years
> ago but I never got around to it.  First, libtool actually names
> plugins the way you did, so no need to worry there.

Libtool also renames modules with the cyg- prefix (if the module .la has
a lib- prefix, which isn't always the case).  But since these modules
are not in PATH and hence unlikely to be confused with a MinGW version,
I didn't feel it was worth making the code changes necessary to do this.

> The manpages are screwed up.  The issue, as you know, is that there
> are a number of manpages which have the same name/different case.

Qt4 doesn't include manpage documentation at all, just html for use with
assistant.  I may either remove this entirely, or try to use a managed
mount during building and package only the real manpages.

> The versioned dll's should go into a different package.  In theory,
> that should allow a person to just install only them, with no other
> items.

And what good are the dll's without the necessary plugins?  I believe
that the main package is pretty minimal without sacrificing usability.

Remember that Qt3 is near the end of it's development life, so I won't
take the time to explain why I don't agree with your versioning system.

> Now that versioned dlls are out of the main package, you should
> probably merge the -bin package into the base to cutdown on the number
> of packages.

The -bin package is not of interest to most users, and hence does not
belong in the main package.

> Just a thought, but you might considier merging -doc into -devel, to
> cut down on the number of packages.

Once again, these are two separate things.  Devel contains what is
necessary to build (an existing package) against Qt, and doc is (mainly)
for developers writing their own code.  I intend to keep these separate.

> As a former Gentoo package developer I was quite surprised to see that
> the buildscript is an ebuild (sorta).  I think it is cool that you've
> hacked portage to support Cygwin.  However, in converting it from an
> ebuild to a standalone script, I think that you've reinvented the
> wheel.  A modest suggestion, just use the Generic Build Script
> provided by Cygwin and keep the ebuild stuff seperate.  Once you've
> fixed the GBS template to handle multiple packages (see gettext for
> how), I should think it would take no longer to make new  packages
> than it had with the ebuild-base template.  Although it isn't required
> now, I think the hope is that someday we can standardize the
> buildscripts so that we have some uniformity.

I didn't really hack portage to support Cygwin; I forked the g-b-s a
while ago and made it closer to Gentoo portage syntax, included some of
the helper functions, and made different versions for different kinds of
packages (GNOME, perl modules, python distutils modules, ruby modules,
non-autotooled packages, etc.).

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list