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