1 |
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> [...] |
3 |
> Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the |
4 |
> power to tweak things, but we shouldn't force them to play with config |
5 |
> files all day long just to have a functional system. If users want to |
6 |
> care we let them care instead of telling them "don't touch" like most |
7 |
> other distros, but if they don't care we still provide reasonable |
8 |
> defaults. |
9 |
|
10 |
And that is exactly what we do. The kde profile enables qt4, the |
11 |
plasma profile enables qt5, the other profiles have no qt* useflags |
12 |
enabled. These are reasonable defaults. |
13 |
|
14 |
Of course some users will proceed to enable both qt4 and qt5 globally |
15 |
in their make.conf, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect |
16 |
them to then deal with adding exceptions to package.use for those |
17 |
packages where exactly-one-of is required. |
18 |
|
19 |
In my opinion, this is the way Gentoo has always worked, and we should |
20 |
simply recommend users to only set one of the qt* useflags as globally |
21 |
enabled, if they want to prevent such micro-management. Hiding the qt4 |
22 |
option is in my opinion the wrong solution around people complaining |
23 |
after they have consciously enabled both flags. |
24 |
|
25 |
If this is not acceptable (or "absolutely unusable" as one dev put |
26 |
it), then we need a proper solution, which a) will not hide the qt4 |
27 |
option, and b) will prevent triggering required_use blockage by |
28 |
choosing qt5 over qt4 in case both are enabled, while c) informing the |
29 |
user about this. This probably requires new eclass or even EAPI |
30 |
functionality. |
31 |
|
32 |
In the meantime, we should stick with the policies adopted at the qt3 |
33 |
to qt4 transition (explicit versioned useflags) and let the user deal |
34 |
with per-package management if they enable both flags. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Cheers, |
38 |
|
39 |
Ben | yngwin |
40 |
Gentoo developer |