| 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 |
Archives