| 1 |
On 11/08/15 23:39, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy |
| 5 |
>> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone |
| 6 |
>> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users |
| 7 |
>> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, |
| 11 |
> make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy |
| 12 |
> that ease life BOTH for developers and users. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
With what authority? Whether we like it or not, no project has any |
| 15 |
formal authority to tell others how to handle "their" part of Gentoo. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. |
| 19 |
> I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every |
| 20 |
> single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own |
| 23 |
> bicycles... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing |
| 26 |
> reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their |
| 27 |
> package.use |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic. |
Archives