| 1 |
On 13/08/15 18:17, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 11.08.2015 16:49, Michael Palimaka пишет: |
| 3 |
>>> You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. |
| 4 |
>>> I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every |
| 5 |
>>> single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own |
| 8 |
>>> bicycles... |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing |
| 11 |
>>> reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their |
| 12 |
>>> package.use |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If introducing new USE-flags or ignoring using REQUIRED_USE leads to |
| 20 |
> blowing the DEPEND variable, adding pain for the developers - it is the |
| 21 |
> topic, definitely |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Seriously, read the original post again. It's about handling of packages |
| 25 |
that offer a choice between qt4 and qt5 and how to present that to the user. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's not about the size of dependency strings, banning REQUIRED_USE, |
| 28 |
project policy enforcement or anything else. If you wish to discuss |
| 29 |
those topics please create a new thread and stop derailing this one. |
Archives