| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 15:21, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Solution: The qt flag represents the latest qt major version for the |
| 3 |
> package. The maintainer can either put in another flag for the older |
| 4 |
> version (qt3?) or provide a separate package (e.g. dbus-qt3 ). |
| 5 |
Although I can see why you suggest this (Qt 4 is what should become mainline |
| 6 |
asap), right now I think it's going to be a bit of a mess for KDE users, |
| 7 |
Remember we don't have use-deps and that splitting packages is something |
| 8 |
that, if done without upstream support, can give very bad headaches (we both |
| 9 |
know how KDE split is right now). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Also, this puts us back again in gtk's system, with different meaning for the |
| 12 |
same flag (qt can then either be for Qt3 or Qt4, no clear distinction), that |
| 13 |
might even change on maintainer's decision, becoming a mess to handle in |
| 14 |
dependent packages. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Why you think it's better this way rather than having one meaning every |
| 17 |
useflag? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Another thing that this setup is going to make incredibly difficult to manage |
| 20 |
is use.mask masking on profiles. If for some reasons Qt3 or Qt4 needs to be |
| 21 |
masked on a profile, even temporarily, by having qt mean one or the other |
| 22 |
depending on the package is going to be a mess as we don't have per-package |
| 23 |
use.mask (and we won't have till portage 2.2 gets the main scene). This is |
| 24 |
another of the main reasons I don't think it's a good idea to overload |
| 25 |
useflags with different (albeit slightly) meanings. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I agree on the other part tho, pushing Qt4 is indeed a good idea, although it |
| 28 |
might mess up the look&feel of a desktop, but that is marginally important. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 32 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives