| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> [...] |
| 4 |
>> Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the |
| 5 |
>> power to tweak things, but we shouldn't force them to play with config |
| 6 |
>> files all day long just to have a functional system. If users want to |
| 7 |
>> care we let them care instead of telling them "don't touch" like most |
| 8 |
>> other distros, but if they don't care we still provide reasonable |
| 9 |
>> defaults. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And that is exactly what we do. The kde profile enables qt4, the |
| 12 |
> plasma profile enables qt5, the other profiles have no qt* useflags |
| 13 |
> enabled. These are reasonable defaults. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As tetromino pointed out, this is very far from the real current situation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Of course some users will proceed to enable both qt4 and qt5 globally |
| 19 |
> in their make.conf, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect |
| 20 |
> them to then deal with adding exceptions to package.use for those |
| 21 |
> packages where exactly-one-of is required. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> In my opinion, this is the way Gentoo has always worked, and we should |
| 24 |
> simply recommend users to only set one of the qt* useflags as globally |
| 25 |
> enabled, if they want to prevent such micro-management. Hiding the qt4 |
| 26 |
> option is in my opinion the wrong solution around people complaining |
| 27 |
> after they have consciously enabled both flags. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> If this is not acceptable (or "absolutely unusable" as one dev put |
| 30 |
> it), then we need a proper solution, which a) will not hide the qt4 |
| 31 |
> option, and b) will prevent triggering required_use blockage by |
| 32 |
> choosing qt5 over qt4 in case both are enabled, while c) informing the |
| 33 |
> user about this. This probably requires new eclass or even EAPI |
| 34 |
> functionality. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Please go ahead and design and implement such functionality (a sort of |
| 38 |
REQUIRED_USE defaults). In the meantime, we will apply the policies |
| 39 |
written in the Qt project wiki page. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> In the meantime, we should stick with the policies adopted at the qt3 |
| 42 |
> to qt4 transition (explicit versioned useflags) and let the user deal |
| 43 |
> with per-package management if they enable both flags. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
We didn't have REQUIRED_USE at the time of the qt3->qt4 transition, so |
| 47 |
this point is completely moot. |
Archives