| 1 |
On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 3 |
> [...] |
| 4 |
> This policy will allow to USE both qt versions whichever is |
| 5 |
> available preferring newer one. Quite reasonable approach. |
| 6 |
> Alternatives (^^() and ??()) will require micromanagement (e.g. |
| 7 |
> pagkage.use.conf) for dozens if not hundreds of packages for no |
| 8 |
> good reason. If someone still needs to override such policy (e.g. |
| 9 |
> to use qt4 when both are available), this can be done by |
| 10 |
> per-package configuration. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My idea is that packages should be fully controllable, but choises |
| 13 |
> of default behaviour should be done so, that in most cases |
| 14 |
> micromanagement will not be necessary. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I like this qt policy and I'm not sure if it violates any current |
| 17 |
> rule. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies |
| 20 |
under 1.4 and 1.5. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
QA has spoken out pretty clearly against unversioned gtk or qt |
| 23 |
useflags, and in favour of explicit versioned useflags. Dropping the |
| 24 |
explicit qt4 useflag in these cases goes against (at least the spirit |
| 25 |
of) this. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> [...] |
| 28 |
> So I propose to add somewhere to devmanual/policies the following |
| 29 |
> recommendation: "If package supports several versions of the same |
| 30 |
> technology (e.g. qt4 and qt5) and more than one is enabled by USE |
| 31 |
> flags, ebuild should prefer the later one (in terms of technology |
| 32 |
> generation).". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we adopt this, we should make sure the users understand this |
| 35 |
policy, because it hides certain details from the user. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Cheers, |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 41 |
Gentoo developer |
Archives