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
On 5 August 2015 at 03:09, Davide Pesavento p...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
power to tweak
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/08/15 03:34 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
On 08/02/2015 10:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted
these ebuild policies:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:59 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
power to tweak
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
power to tweak things, but we shouldn't force them to play with config
files all day
On 03/08/2015 22:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote:
| The approach qt4=qt4
| and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end
| up having to set tons
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
power to tweak things, but we shouldn't force them to play with config
files all day long just to have a functional system. If users want to
care we let
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:59 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
[...]
Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
power to tweak things, but we shouldn't force them to play with config
files all day long just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2015 10:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2015 12:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko
birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
for ordinary users — they will confused by qt qt4 qt5:
On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote:
| The approach qt4=qt4
| and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end
| up having to set tons of per-package configurations when they don't
| actually care which one they use,
I will risk a thesis that if they
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote:
| The approach qt4=qt4
| and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end
| up having to set tons of per-package configurations when they don't
| actually care which one they use,
I will
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote:
| The approach qt4=qt4
| and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end
| up having to set tons of per-package configurations when they
On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
[...]
This policy will allow to USE both qt versions whichever is
available preferring newer one. Quite reasonable approach.
Alternatives (^^() and ??()) will require
On 3 August 2015 at 09:37, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I find setting USE=qt4 -qt5 a lot more obvious than having USE=qt (why
not
USE=X ?) which then does different things based on another useflag,
sometimes.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I want to use fooplayer and bargrapher which are two qt-based
applications. fooplayer only supports qt4, and bargrapher only
supports qt5. What USE flags should I set, without restorting to
per-package flags?
These
On 3 August 2015 at 11:30, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I want to use fooplayer and bargrapher which are two qt-based
applications. fooplayer only supports qt4, and bargrapher only
supports qt5. What USE flags
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of
Qt-like policy. Then Qt team figured out their policy was unfriendly,
and 'fixed' it with this ugly hack...
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of
Qt-like policy. Then Qt
On 8/2/15 7:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
What would be really clean is USE='qt qt5' (or 'qt qt4'), alike GNOME
team policy. USE=qt would mean 'any version of Qt, if optional', and
qt4/qt5 would be used to switch between Qt4/Qt5. If Qt would be
obligatory, no USE=qt would apply. If only one Qt
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 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
Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
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
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
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
policy that handled the case
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
for ordinary users — they will confused by qt qt4 qt5: what is
'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. What you are really
doing is implementing
^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The user
receives a message saying at-most-one-of instead of some convoluted other
expression that they don't understand.
I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason.
Additionally, ?? has the same effect of
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
I have an
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
for ordinary users — they will confused by qt qt4 qt5: what is
'qt', how is it
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
NP-Hardass np-hard...@gentoo.org wrote:
^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user.
The user receives a message saying at-most-one-of instead of some
convoluted other expression that they don't understand.
I am all for the use of ^^
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:50:25
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Long story
On Sunday 02 August 2015 22:22:28 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
NP-Hardass np-hard...@gentoo.org wrote:
^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user.
The user receives a message saying at-most-one-of instead of some
convoluted other
On Monday 03 August 2015 00:34:51 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
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I find setting USE=qt4 -qt5 a lot more obvious than having USE=qt (why not
USE=X ?) which then does different things based on another useflag,
sometimes. Maybe. It's horribly inconsistent and even might change result over
34 matches
Mail list logo
