1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Ben de Groot wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these |
4 |
> ebuild policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies |
5 |
|
6 |
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two |
7 |
> Qt versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a |
8 |
> choice between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in explicit |
9 |
> useflags and a REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This offers the user |
10 |
> the clearest choice. |
11 |
|
12 |
> Other developers state that users are not interested in such |
13 |
> implementation details, or that forced choice through REQUIRED_USE |
14 |
> is too much of a hassle. This results in current ebuilds such as |
15 |
> quassel to not make it clear that qt4 is an option. |
16 |
|
17 |
The general policy is outlined here: |
18 |
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#conflicting-use-flags |
19 |
|
20 |
# Note: In order to avoid forcing users to micro-manage flags too |
21 |
# much, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly. Follow the normal |
22 |
# policy whenever it is possible to do a build that will presumably |
23 |
# suit the user's needs. |
24 |
|
25 |
So I think the Qt team's policy (i.e. *no* REQUIRED_USE, prefer qt5 in |
26 |
case of conflicting flags) is perfectly fine. |
27 |
|
28 |
> This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as |
29 |
> against QA recommendations. I would like to hear specifically from |
30 |
> QA about how we should proceed, but comments from the wider |
31 |
> developer community are also welcome. |
32 |
|
33 |
Maybe output an ewarn message if both qt[45] flags are set, and |
34 |
therefore the qt5 default is taken? |
35 |
|
36 |
Ulrich |