>>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Ben de Groot wrote: > Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these > ebuild policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two > Qt versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a > choice between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in explicit > useflags and a REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This offers the user > the clearest choice. > Other developers state that users are not interested in such > implementation details, or that forced choice through REQUIRED_USE > is too much of a hassle. This results in current ebuilds such as > quassel to not make it clear that qt4 is an option. The general policy is outlined here: https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#conflicting-use-flags # Note: In order to avoid forcing users to micro-manage flags too # much, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly. Follow the normal # policy whenever it is possible to do a build that will presumably # suit the user's needs. So I think the Qt team's policy (i.e. *no* REQUIRED_USE, prefer qt5 in case of conflicting flags) is perfectly fine. > This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as > against QA recommendations. I would like to hear specifically from > QA about how we should proceed, but comments from the wider > developer community are also welcome. Maybe output an ewarn message if both qt[45] flags are set, and therefore the qt5 default is taken? Ulrich
pgpJt08QcicYZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
