Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:41:53 -0400 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> To: matt donovan <kitchetech@gmail.com> Cc: Sticky Bit <stickybit@gmx.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: qt4 ports descriptions Message-ID: <49C98BE1.6050906@telenix.org> In-Reply-To: <28283d910903241611n695018e9g934acf921f15dda3@mail.gmail.com> References: <49C9256C.2040900@telenix.org> <200903242202.28054.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> <49C954F0.8050803@FreeBSD.org> <200903242322.18533.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> <28283d910903241611n695018e9g934acf921f15dda3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 matt donovan wrote: > > Chuck is more complaining about the QT4 ports descriptions since he does > not get it that all of it is required to program in QT4. so of course it > will all have the same description since it all comes from one tarball > think freebsd just breaks some of it up though but I could be wrong > Well, let me offer an example: qt4-core versus qt4-qtdemo. They are very, very different ports, but they have precisely the same descriptions. Is this correct, from your viewpoint?? I did a find for all pkgs starting with qt4, and found they all have the same descriptions. Seeing as just how different they are (most certainly from a user perspective), it seems easily justifiable to require different descr strings, most certainly given the small work involved. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknJi+EACgkQz62J6PPcoOneugCgl+lFgZzBliebkEtfMJE+fOJV EwEAoJw4nyBCaTeqsZ2X2NUtexwEzJDb =G15G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C98BE1.6050906>