1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 05/08/15 02:38 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
5 |
> On 4 August 2015 at 22:56, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
6 |
> wrote: |
7 |
>> Are there any cases where things actually break if a package has |
8 |
>> both flags enabled? IE, is three a package with IUSE="qt4 qt5" |
9 |
>> that when both flags are enabled would build for qt5 only, and |
10 |
>> happens to be a dependency atom of something else that needs it |
11 |
>> to have qt4 support? That to me is the only case where a |
12 |
>> REQUIRED_USE needs to be set on a package. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I'm not aware we have such a package, but I may be overlooking |
15 |
> something. Either way, I think it is a dangerous road to go down |
16 |
> that way. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I'm not aware of any either, although I haven't done a comprehensive |
20 |
audit of the tree to find out. I would find it unlikely that any such |
21 |
package exists. |
22 |
|
23 |
The thing is, we're already travelling that road (have been for a long |
24 |
while), and IMO there is very little "cost" to travelling this road |
25 |
compared to the so-called "proper" solution of forcing off one flag or |
26 |
the other, ESPECIALLY when we are likely to have both flags default-on |
27 |
soon in the generic desktop profile as was posted earlier. |
28 |
|
29 |
If we do go the REQUIRED_USE="^^" route on packages, then I think it |
30 |
would be best that we change the 'desktop' and other profiles s.t. |
31 |
maintainers need to add their package with whichever flag should be |
32 |
enabled (qt4 or qt5) to package.use, rather than having the qt* |
33 |
flag(s) globally enabled in the profile -- otherwise we end up with |
34 |
end-users having to deal with it. |
35 |
|
36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
37 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
38 |
|
39 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXCfk4ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1CswEA0e4c/gRSbjg0b858+uVFc+z2 |
40 |
+05WUPjFsPpfXrdPs3wA/2r0PyitPRoZAWPWBKm8LhMAC5YIHtjhWA7kh2LTImAQ |
41 |
=gyeU |
42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |