From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] gnu: vlc: Fix regression caused by update to qt 5.7. Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:16:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20160821231658.GB4548@jasmine> References: <20160820215957.GA6502@jasmine> <20160821140825.13048-1-david@craven.ch> <20160821140825.13048-11-david@craven.ch> <874m6ddgtf.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbbzN-0002aK-GS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:17:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbbzI-0004Vu-DJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:17:12 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:42233) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbbzH-0004VT-6z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:17:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel 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?