1 |
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:50:25 |
2 |
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03 |
6 |
> > Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
9 |
> > > > Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a |
10 |
> > > > policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of |
11 |
> > > > Qt-like policy. Then Qt team figured out their policy was unfriendly, |
12 |
> > > > and 'fixed' it with this ugly hack... |
13 |
> > > > |
14 |
> > > > As I see it, this is a major failure of using toolkit-version oriented |
15 |
> > > > flags rather than feature-oriented flags. Possibilities compared: |
16 |
> > > > |
17 |
> > > > USE='qt4 qt5' without ^^ is easy to set since it is free of REQUIRED_USE |
18 |
> > > > issues. However, it's ugly: USE='qt4 qt5' may now mean either both |
19 |
> > > > toolkits or one of them. In the latter case, we have two flag |
20 |
> > > > combinations (= two different binary packages) that mean the same. |
21 |
> > > > Additionally, USE='-qt4 -qt5' may mean both none of them or one of |
22 |
> > > > them. If the latter, yet another case of redundant binary package. |
23 |
> > > > |
24 |
> > > > USE='qt4 qt5' with ^^/?? is cleaner from user perspective and better |
25 |
> > > > for binary packages. However, it may mean that user will have to |
26 |
> > > > randomly adjust flags per-package. Which may end up sucking even more |
27 |
> > > > with new Qt versions being introduced and package.use being full of |
28 |
> > > > random '-qt4' and stuff. |
29 |
> > > > |
30 |
> > > > What would be really clean is USE='qt qt5' (or 'qt qt4'), alike GNOME |
31 |
> > > > team policy. USE=qt would mean 'any version of Qt, if optional', and |
32 |
> > > > qt4/qt5 would be used to switch between Qt4/Qt5. If Qt would be |
33 |
> > > > obligatory, no USE=qt would apply. If only one Qt version would be |
34 |
> > > > supported, no USE=qt4/qt5 would apply. Clean, sane and limited |
35 |
> > > > package.use cruft. |
36 |
> > > |
37 |
> > > This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not |
38 |
> > > for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what is |
39 |
> > > 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> > This can be easily fixed via USE flag descriptions. And unlike with |
42 |
> > your solution, the descriptions can be globally consistent. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > > What you are really |
45 |
> > > doing is implementing second-level USE flags, while they were |
46 |
> > > supposed to be linear. |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > Please support such claims with references. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> A reference from your previous e-mail: |
51 |
> > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
52 |
> [...] |
53 |
> > > > What would be really clean is USE='qt qt5' (or 'qt qt4'), alike GNOME |
54 |
> > > > team policy. USE=qt would mean 'any version of Qt, if optional', and |
55 |
> > > > qt4/qt5 would be used to switch between Qt4/Qt5. If Qt would be |
56 |
> > > > obligatory, no USE=qt would apply. If only one Qt version would be |
57 |
> > > > supported, no USE=qt4/qt5 would apply. Clean, sane and limited |
58 |
> > > > package.use cruft. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> You're proposing "qt" as a top level USE flag, while "qt4/qt5" will |
61 |
> be in your opinion optional clarifying USE flags. This way we have |
62 |
> second-level hierarchy. |
63 |
|
64 |
I meant the claim that USE flags are supposed to be linear. |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Best regards, |
68 |
Michał Górny |