| 1 |
I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies with |
| 2 |
more correct and rationale. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, i |
| 5 |
think that we should not take any decision on this without at least Qt |
| 6 |
team lead(or half of Qt team devs) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
So, let's arrange some time and talk about this, cause it is really |
| 9 |
confusing. Qt team point is understandable, but it's still wrong. Let's |
| 10 |
make some consensus here. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
02.08.2015 19:34, Ben de Groot пишет: |
| 13 |
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild |
| 14 |
> policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt |
| 17 |
> versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a choice |
| 18 |
> between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in explicit useflags and a |
| 19 |
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This offers the user the clearest choice. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Other developers state that users are not interested in such |
| 22 |
> implementation details, or that forced choice through REQUIRED_USE is |
| 23 |
> too much of a hassle. This results in current ebuilds such as quassel to |
| 24 |
> not make it clear that qt4 is an option. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as against QA |
| 27 |
> recommendations. I would like to hear specifically from QA about how we |
| 28 |
> should proceed, but comments from the wider developer community are also |
| 29 |
> welcome. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> -- |
| 32 |
> Cheers, |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Ben | yngwin |
| 35 |
> Gentoo developer |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 41 |
Gentoo developer |
| 42 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 43 |
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead |
| 44 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives