| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 |
| 4 |
>> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. |
| 7 |
>>> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where |
| 10 |
>>> qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is |
| 11 |
>>> the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are |
| 12 |
>>> enabled or disabled |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge |
| 20 |
> difference to me :-) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are we |
| 24 |
saying that any package that could use either always enable one of |
| 25 |
them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, and then users |
| 26 |
have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be the opposite of how |
| 27 |
we normally do things, but it does let you get away from having lots |
| 28 |
of users turning on qt. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Normally we'd just turn them on in a profile, but you can't do this if |
| 31 |
some packages need qt4, some need qt5, and some fail if both are |
| 32 |
enabled. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives