On Sunday 29 November 2009 16:29:51 Dominik Kapusta wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:54:30 Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:46:59PM +0200, Dominik Kapusta wrote:
> > > Hello guys!
> > >
> > > We, the Qt team, would like to include a new eclass in the tree.
> > >
> > > The qt4-r2 eclass is meant to help with ebuilds for Qt-based
> > > (qmake-based, to be precise) applications.
> > Haven't look at the content yet. But the name is going to make things
> > extremely confusing. I can see people using qt4-r2 just because it has
> > -r2 (so it is newer than qt4), even if they should use qt4. If you really
> > need to introduce a new eclass, you should use a name that accurately
> > reflects what it does.
> > Cheers,
> > Thomas
> The name is actually the simplest possible, and yes, our goal is to switch
> to qt4-r2 in the end (which I mentioned at the end of my first mail). So
> in general, once qt4-r2 is in, no one should use qt4.eclass.
> We had several name options, e.g. qt4-tng but qt4-r2 seemed the most
> straightforward. plus -r2 adds the Gentoo flavor, hence is better than e.g.
> qt4-v2 :)
> That said, we want qt4-r2 to be a new eclass for Qt-based ebuilds. And we
> can't just make changes to qt4.eclass since there are too many ebuilds
> using it and we would surely break the tree.
Scarabeus ( Tomas ) proposed this patch . I think it is ok to apply it
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sound/Sunrise/Kernel/Bug-wrangler]