| 1 |
> qt - GLOBAL use flag that causes the package to build against the good |
| 2 |
> version |
| 3 |
> for that package. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> qt3, qt4... - LOCAL use flags to build against specific versions of |
| 6 |
> qt when it makes sense on a per-package basis and when it's deemed to |
| 7 |
> be reasonable by the package maintainer. Easy to keep track of because |
| 8 |
> they'd all be in use.local.desc. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is exactly what I recommend. It requires no end user changes to make |
| 11 |
it work. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The only downside to this is that using "qt" isn't explicit in which |
| 15 |
version it pulls in. To that, I say: who cares? That only seemingly |
| 16 |
becomes valid when someone wants to "rid their system of a specific |
| 17 |
version of Qt", which if they're advanced enough to think they need to do |
| 18 |
that they can probably hack around enough to figure out that packages |
| 19 |
depend on the version of Qt they want to nuke. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I seriously doubt there will ever be many packages that support both at |
| 22 |
the same time. For those, we'll handle them in the best way we can at the |
| 23 |
time, be it a qt3 flag, a separate package instance, or other. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Moreso, people will release new packages of existing products that use Qt4 |
| 26 |
instead of Qt3. This is where it gets interesting: if somelibrary-3.0 |
| 27 |
depends on Qt3 and somelibrary-4.0 depends on Qt4, do we slot them so they |
| 28 |
can both be installed at the same time? Seems reasonable to do so, but |
| 29 |
you run into the issue of how to handle version dependencies across slots |
| 30 |
of the same package...something portage doesn't do very gracefully at the |
| 31 |
moment. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Oh, the joys. :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives