| 1 |
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03 |
| 2 |
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a |
| 6 |
> > policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of |
| 7 |
> > Qt-like policy. Then Qt team figured out their policy was unfriendly, |
| 8 |
> > and 'fixed' it with this ugly hack... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > As I see it, this is a major failure of using toolkit-version oriented |
| 11 |
> > flags rather than feature-oriented flags. Possibilities compared: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > USE='qt4 qt5' without ^^ is easy to set since it is free of REQUIRED_USE |
| 14 |
> > issues. However, it's ugly: USE='qt4 qt5' may now mean either both |
| 15 |
> > toolkits or one of them. In the latter case, we have two flag |
| 16 |
> > combinations (= two different binary packages) that mean the same. |
| 17 |
> > Additionally, USE='-qt4 -qt5' may mean both none of them or one of |
| 18 |
> > them. If the latter, yet another case of redundant binary package. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > USE='qt4 qt5' with ^^/?? is cleaner from user perspective and better |
| 21 |
> > for binary packages. However, it may mean that user will have to |
| 22 |
> > randomly adjust flags per-package. Which may end up sucking even more |
| 23 |
> > with new Qt versions being introduced and package.use being full of |
| 24 |
> > random '-qt4' and stuff. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > What would be really clean is USE='qt qt5' (or 'qt qt4'), alike GNOME |
| 27 |
> > team policy. USE=qt would mean 'any version of Qt, if optional', and |
| 28 |
> > qt4/qt5 would be used to switch between Qt4/Qt5. If Qt would be |
| 29 |
> > obligatory, no USE=qt would apply. If only one Qt version would be |
| 30 |
> > supported, no USE=qt4/qt5 would apply. Clean, sane and limited |
| 31 |
> > package.use cruft. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not |
| 34 |
> for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what is |
| 35 |
> 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This can be easily fixed via USE flag descriptions. And unlike with |
| 38 |
your solution, the descriptions can be globally consistent. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> What you are really |
| 41 |
> doing is implementing second-level USE flags, while they were |
| 42 |
> supposed to be linear. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Please support such claims with references. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Best regards, |
| 48 |
Michał Górny |
Archives