[ISSUE] rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[ISSUE] rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[Luciogi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

New issue by Luciogi on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293

Description:
None

Re: [ISSUE] [CLOSED] rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[ahesford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 129 bytes --]

Closed issue by Luciogi on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293

Description:
None

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[ahesford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

New comment by ahesford on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2010275350

Comment:
Subpackage names are kind of arbitrary, and while `gpgme-qt5` or something might be better, `qgpgme-qt5` is just arbitrary in a different way. Package renames are also a bad experience in general.

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[Luciogi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

New comment by Luciogi on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2011311170

Comment:
> Subpackage names are kind of arbitrary, and while `gpgme-qt5` or something might be better, `qgpgme-qt5` is just arbitrary in a different way. Package renames are also a bad experience in general.

```
shlib-provides:
        libqgpgmeqt6.so.15
```
qt bindings of gpgme provide above library, it makes logical to have package name `qgpgme-qt6`

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 260 bytes --]

New comment by classabbyamp on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2011327381

Comment:
if that's a new (sub)package, go ahead and name it that way, but changing the existing package is not necessary

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[Luciogi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

New comment by Luciogi on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2011341332

Comment:
> if that's a new (sub)package, go ahead and name it that way, but changing the existing package is not necessary

yes gpgmeqt is subpackage

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[ahesford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 931 bytes --]

New comment by ahesford on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2011911693

Comment:
I didn't realize that the Qt5 package was nothing more than a library. We have a [naming convention](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/Manual.md#libraries) that should be applied to any new subpackage here.
The new addition ought to be called `libqgpgmeqt6{,-devel}` or, because that's an illegible jumble of Q, P and G, maybe `libqgpgme-qt6{,-devel}`. 

Still, changing the name of the existing subpackage is a bad experience, because
1. We'll still have to carry the current name anyway, as a transitional dummy;
2. Presumably the Qt5 package should just be phased out at some point; and
3. Package renames should really only be considered when the upstream project actually changes its name, not to correct our own (longstanding) violations of convention.

Re: rename `gpgmeqt` -> qgpgme-qt5

[ahesford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

New comment by ahesford on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/49293#issuecomment-2011911693

Comment:
I didn't realize that the Qt5 package was nothing more than a library. We have a [naming convention](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/Manual.md#libraries) that should be applied to any new subpackage here. The new addition ought to be called `libqgpgmeqt6{,-devel}` or, because that's an illegible jumble of Q, P and G, maybe `libqgpgme-qt6{,-devel}`. 

Still, changing the name of the existing subpackage is a bad experience, because
1. We'll still have to carry the current name anyway, as a transitional dummy;
2. Presumably the Qt5 package should just be phased out at some point; and
3. Package renames should really only be considered when the upstream project actually changes its name, not to correct our own (longstanding) violations of convention.