| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not |
| 5 |
>> for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what is |
| 6 |
>> 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. What you are really |
| 7 |
>> doing is implementing second-level USE flags, while they were |
| 8 |
>> supposed to be linear. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> No argument that it isn't intuitive, but setting USE=qt and forgetting |
| 11 |
> about it certainly seems more user-friendly than setting qt4/qt5 on |
| 12 |
> individual packages and worrying about which is better where. To some |
| 13 |
> extent the current qt policy accomplishes this, but it sacrifices |
| 14 |
> control when users actually do want it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No, it does not. You can still control whether you want qt4 or qt5 on |
| 17 |
a per-package basis. The difference is that users that don't care |
| 18 |
about this level of control are not forced to make a choice for every |
| 19 |
package due to REQUIRED_USE conflicts. Unless I'm missing something... |
Archives