| 1 |
On 2016-06-02 03:42 PM, waltdnes@××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote |
| 3 |
>> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for |
| 4 |
>> users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care |
| 5 |
>> about gtk/qt, they just want windows to be drawn for the applications |
| 6 |
>> they install -- without, if possible, pulling useless dependencies. |
| 7 |
> How, exactly, will the app draw windows without linking against one of |
| 8 |
> X/wayland/mir/qt4/qt5/gtk2/gtk3/fltk or whatever else comes down the |
| 9 |
> pike? |
| 10 |
It will be linked to one of those, but the users don't want to care so |
| 11 |
reasonable default would apply. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For example, if I have setup my profile to be 'plasma', then having |
| 14 |
'gui' in my global use flags would mean "build with qt5 support to |
| 15 |
provide my gui whenever possible, if not possible, fallback to whatever |
| 16 |
is available at the discretion of the package maintainer". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
2 nice properties I foresee this feature will have: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
* If you do not like it, don't use it. It shouldn't affect any user |
| 21 |
unless they explicitly use the flag. |
| 22 |
* Negating the flag would mean to not build any GUI (i.e. headless |
| 23 |
server) which is cleaner than: '-qt3support -qt4 -qt5 -gtk -gtk3 -X |
| 24 |
-waylang...' |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I do not think the question is whether the flag would be useful: it |
| 27 |
will. The question is: can it be implemented efficiently... |
Archives