1 |
On Sunday 29 November 2009 16:29:51 Dominik Kapusta wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:54:30 Thomas Anderson wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:46:59PM +0200, Dominik Kapusta wrote: |
4 |
> > > Hello guys! |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > We, the Qt team, would like to include a new eclass in the tree. |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > The qt4-r2 eclass is meant to help with ebuilds for Qt-based |
9 |
> > > (qmake-based, to be precise) applications. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Haven't look at the content yet. But the name is going to make things |
12 |
> > extremely confusing. I can see people using qt4-r2 just because it has |
13 |
> > -r2 (so it is newer than qt4), even if they should use qt4. If you really |
14 |
> > need to introduce a new eclass, you should use a name that accurately |
15 |
> > reflects what it does. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Cheers, |
18 |
> > Thomas |
19 |
> |
20 |
> The name is actually the simplest possible, and yes, our goal is to switch |
21 |
> to qt4-r2 in the end (which I mentioned at the end of my first mail). So |
22 |
> in general, once qt4-r2 is in, no one should use qt4.eclass. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> We had several name options, e.g. qt4-tng but qt4-r2 seemed the most |
25 |
> straightforward. plus -r2 adds the Gentoo flavor, hence is better than e.g. |
26 |
> qt4-v2 :) |
27 |
> |
28 |
> That said, we want qt4-r2 to be a new eclass for Qt-based ebuilds. And we |
29 |
> can't just make changes to qt4.eclass since there are too many ebuilds |
30 |
> using it and we would surely break the tree. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Cheers, |
33 |
> Dominik |
34 |
> |
35 |
Scarabeus ( Tomas ) proposed this patch [1]. I think it is ok to apply it |
36 |
|
37 |
[1]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/qt4-r2.eclass.patch |
38 |
-- |
39 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
40 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sound/Sunrise/Kernel/Bug-wrangler] |
41 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |