| 1 |
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:39:29 -0400 (EDT) |
| 2 |
"Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <msterret@××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Am I making sense? This looks a lot like the gtk/gtk2 flags, but |
| 7 |
> > inverted; according to use.desc, gtk builds gtk+-1 unless gtk2 is |
| 8 |
> > set, whereas the above builds highest version compatible with the |
| 9 |
> > package unless a lower version is specifically requested through |
| 10 |
> > USE. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's not what use.desc says gtk does. You just illustrated how |
| 13 |
> confusing the gtk/gtk2 use flag situation has been. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The gtk use flag doesn't specify a version. It just says that the |
| 16 |
> package should build against *a* version of gtk+. The gtk2 flag was |
| 17 |
> a way to prefer the gtk2 interface over the gtk1 interface if a |
| 18 |
> package supported both. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
ok; so in gtk-land we have gtk2 to prefer the newer interface whereas |
| 21 |
the proposal for qt/qt3 is to have a specific flag for the older |
| 22 |
interface. I do prefer the qt/qt3 approach, even though it's |
| 23 |
inconsistent with what happens on gtk. I don't suppose changing |
| 24 |
gtk/gtk2 to gtk/gtk1 would be popular... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Thankfully, we've mostly moved past the gtk/gtk2 use flag mess now. |
| 27 |
> Let's try not to make it quite so hard for people with the qt toolkit. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think we're all agreed there :) So it's worth thrashing out properly. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives