| 1 |
George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали: |
| 3 |
>> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults. |
| 5 |
>> -* says nothing to you? :) |
| 6 |
> Now I am confused: |
| 7 |
> My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is meant to mean "prefer qt3 |
| 8 |
> over qt4", rather than "enable qt3 unconditionally and see what can be done |
| 9 |
> about qt4". So which one is that? |
| 10 |
> If it is former (preference flag) I do not see aproblem there: |
| 11 |
> -qt +qt3 = -qt in such reading. |
| 12 |
> So, basically the question is about interpretation of -qt +qt3 construct.. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-qt +qt3: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This would only be available in 2 cases: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive |
| 19 |
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they can both be enabled at once |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In case 1, "-qt +qt3" would enable qt3. In case 2, "-qt +qt3" would |
| 22 |
enable qt3. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In other words, as I've been trying to say all along, there is no such |
| 25 |
thing as a preference flag here. That creates a 2-flag combination to |
| 26 |
get a single feature, which is _not_ what we want. There is a "qt" flag |
| 27 |
to indicate enabling the best available qt for that package, and there |
| 28 |
are "qt#" flags to indicate enabling older qt for that package. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The downside to this setup is that it's difficult to avoid installing |
| 31 |
certain qt versions when it's unknown which version USE=qt will pull in |
| 32 |
for any given package. This favors an entirely versioned setup instead, |
| 33 |
and we should get rid of USE=qt altogether in favor of only USE=qt#. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Donnie |
Archives