| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> There have already been users on the forums with that very confusion of |
| 3 |
> what to do with the cryptic "[!icu?]". And there are currently many |
| 4 |
> forum threads involving the icu use flag, qt-webkit,... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yup, this issue hit anybody who has qt-webkit and chromium installed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I wouldn't be surprised if that is half of the entire userbase. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We ran into another confusing icu-related issue with qt-core a few |
| 11 |
weeks ago (bug 413541). I can understand that the qt maintainers want |
| 12 |
to get away from enabling icu for this reason, but chromium is a VERY |
| 13 |
popular package so it is really only disabled in the sense that it |
| 14 |
annoys a bazillion people who have to un-disable it and then still run |
| 15 |
into the problems. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Better portage logic might help here, but I think we need to consider |
| 18 |
whether a non-optimal decision from a single package perspective is |
| 19 |
going to lead to a better overall experience for our userbase. Zac |
| 20 |
suggested adding icu to the profile, which would work, though really |
| 21 |
just adding it as the default for these two packages would really |
| 22 |
address the issue until portage can catch up. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Those who REALLY don't want icu support in qt-webkit can always |
| 25 |
disable it manually now that the flag is there. If there is a fear |
| 26 |
that this default will lead to more bugs, those bugs will happen |
| 27 |
anyway, since anybody running chromium has to enable that flag. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives