| 1 |
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:54:30 Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:46:59PM +0200, Dominik Kapusta wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hello guys! |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > We, the Qt team, would like to include a new eclass in the tree. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > The qt4-r2 eclass is meant to help with ebuilds for Qt-based |
| 8 |
> > (qmake-based, to be precise) applications. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Haven't look at the content yet. But the name is going to make things |
| 11 |
> extremely confusing. I can see people using qt4-r2 just because it has -r2 |
| 12 |
> (so it is newer than qt4), even if they should use qt4. If you really need |
| 13 |
> to introduce a new eclass, you should use a name that accurately reflects |
| 14 |
> what it does. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Cheers, |
| 17 |
> Thomas |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The name is actually the simplest possible, and yes, our goal is to switch to |
| 21 |
qt4-r2 in the end (which I mentioned at the end of my first mail). So in |
| 22 |
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 using |
| 30 |
it and we would surely break the tree. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers, |
| 33 |
Dominik |
Archives