1 |
George Shapovalov wrote: |
2 |
> середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали: |
3 |
>> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
4 |
>>> OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults. |
5 |
>> -* says nothing to you? :) |
6 |
> Now I am confused: |
7 |
> My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is meant to mean "prefer qt3 |
8 |
> over qt4", rather than "enable qt3 unconditionally and see what can be done |
9 |
> about qt4". So which one is that? |
10 |
> If it is former (preference flag) I do not see aproblem there: |
11 |
> -qt +qt3 = -qt in such reading. |
12 |
> So, basically the question is about interpretation of -qt +qt3 construct.. |
13 |
|
14 |
-qt +qt3: |
15 |
|
16 |
This would only be available in 2 cases: |
17 |
|
18 |
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive |
19 |
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they can both be enabled at once |
20 |
|
21 |
In case 1, "-qt +qt3" would enable qt3. In case 2, "-qt +qt3" would |
22 |
enable qt3. |
23 |
|
24 |
In other words, as I've been trying to say all along, there is no such |
25 |
thing as a preference flag here. That creates a 2-flag combination to |
26 |
get a single feature, which is _not_ what we want. There is a "qt" flag |
27 |
to indicate enabling the best available qt for that package, and there |
28 |
are "qt#" flags to indicate enabling older qt for that package. |
29 |
|
30 |
The downside to this setup is that it's difficult to avoid installing |
31 |
certain qt versions when it's unknown which version USE=qt will pull in |
32 |
for any given package. This favors an entirely versioned setup instead, |
33 |
and we should get rid of USE=qt altogether in favor of only USE=qt#. |
34 |
|
35 |
Thanks, |
36 |
Donnie |