On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:58:43 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> > OK, so the meta ebuild is just a safety net for those running ebuilds
> > not in the portage tree.
> Probably, but even overlays should consider changing the dependencies
> and use the advantage of the split ebuilds ;-)
Absolutely,
2009/3/30 Neil Bothwick :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:17:00 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>
>> > So every ebuild, in the tree and all overlays, was updated before the
>> > split ebuilds were introduced?
>
>> I don't know the exact progress but I think the split ebuilds were
>> introduced masked, then
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:17:00 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> > So every ebuild, in the tree and all overlays, was updated before the
> > split ebuilds were introduced?
> I don't know the exact progress but I think the split ebuilds were
> introduced masked, then the dependencies have been adjust
2009/3/30 Neil Bothwick :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:53:30 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>
>> So as far as I see the new qt meta ebuild wasn't needed at any time.
>
> So every ebuild, in the tree and all overlays, was updated before the
> split ebuilds were introduced?
>
I don't know the exact prog
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:53:30 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> So as far as I see the new qt meta ebuild wasn't needed at any time.
So every ebuild, in the tree and all overlays, was updated before the
split ebuilds were introduced?
--
Neil Bothwick
You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless
2009/3/30 Neil Bothwick :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:38:48 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>
>> Calling it qt-meta instead of simply qt has nothing to do with this.
>> No ebuild should ever depend on the qt meta ebuild, instead it should
>> just depend on the needed parts that have been split up. So a
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:38:48 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Calling it qt-meta instead of simply qt has nothing to do with this.
> No ebuild should ever depend on the qt meta ebuild, instead it should
> just depend on the needed parts that have been split up. So a
> transition from the single qt
Thankyou guys
Francisco
2009/3/30 Neil Bothwick :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:24:54 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> No. qt is now a meta package and exists only to have the qt split
>> ebuilds as DEPENDencies, so it installs nothing. Unlike the kde split
>> ebuilds, the devs decided not to call it qt-meta and promptly confu
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:24:54 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> No. qt is now a meta package and exists only to have the qt split
> ebuilds as DEPENDencies, so it installs nothing. Unlike the kde split
> ebuilds, the devs decided not to call it qt-meta and promptly confused
> most of the KDE using comm
On Monday 30 March 2009 08:13:33 Francisco Ares wrote:
> I have qt-3.3.8b-r1 and qt-4.4.2
>
> I tried qt-assistant-4.4.2-r1, and it showed me no docs.
[snip]
> Nothing showing the traditional compile and install procedure. Is this a
> bug?
No. qt is now a meta package and exists only to have th
I have qt-3.3.8b-r1 and qt-4.4.2
I tried qt-assistant-4.4.2-r1, and it showed me no docs.
Then I tried to reinstall qt-4.4.2, looking for some use-flag I might
have missed, like "doc" or something like that.
The emerge process of qt-4.4.2 goes like that:
# emerge -v =x11-libs/qt-4.4.2
These
12 matches
Mail list logo
