| 1 |
On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: |
| 5 |
>>>> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, |
| 6 |
>>>> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or |
| 9 |
>>> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make |
| 10 |
>>> users even more confused? |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. |
| 13 |
>>> And dependency string like this: |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps |
| 20 |
>>> like this for you? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Shall we ban this too? |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> ffmpeg? ( |
| 25 |
>> libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) |
| 26 |
>> !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) |
| 27 |
>> ) |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. |
| 34 |
> Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> You want to migrate to such decision? Like: |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> qt? ( |
| 39 |
> qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) |
| 40 |
> !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) |
| 41 |
> ) |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Fine by me, if you would ask. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
This looks fine to me - I have no particular solution preference. I |
| 46 |
understand there's been objection to generic GUI USE flags in the past |
| 47 |
though. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> which will generate something like this: |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> qt4? ( |
| 55 |
> qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) |
| 56 |
> !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) |
| 57 |
> ) |
| 58 |
> !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> would help too. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that |
| 63 |
> provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every |
| 64 |
> developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I disagree but we're getting offtopic. The thread was raised regarding |
| 67 |
support of packages that at-most-one-of qt4 or qt5. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Ben is of course right that for these packages, USE="qt4 qt5" |
| 70 |
automagically selecting qt5 is not the clearest result and has the |
| 71 |
potential for confusion. I feel that usability benefit of this choice |
| 72 |
outweighs the negatives. This leaves only a few options: |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
1. Leave the policy recommendation as-is (letting maintainers adopt or |
| 75 |
ignore it as they see fit) |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
2. Veto the policy recommendation and force something different |
| 78 |
(maintainers who disagree will likely either drop support for multiple |
| 79 |
qt versions or stop maintaining the package completely) |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have |
| 82 |
multiple gui implementation USE flags set?) |
Archives