-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
> 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
On 5 August 2015 at 03:09, Davide Pesavento wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman 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 p
On 4 August 2015 at 22:56, Ian Stakenvicius 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 els
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman 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 funct
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:59 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Gentoo should be the best of both worlds. We should give users the
>> > power to tweak things, but we shouldn't
-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 Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:59 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman 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
On 4 August 2015 at 04:20, Rich Freeman 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 them care ins
On 03/08/2015 22:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, 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-pac
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, 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
> | actuall
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
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 didn'
-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
>>
>>
-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
> wrote:
>>
>> This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
>> for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what
>> is
On 3 August 2015 at 11:30, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot 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 resto
On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko 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 micromanagement
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot 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 packages wou
On 3 August 2015 at 09:37, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer 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 i
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer 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
> time, whi
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 c
On Sunday 02 August 2015 22:22:28 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
>
> NP-Hardass 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
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
NP-Hardass 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 ^^ add the defaul
^^ 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 be
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko 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 'q
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
> Ben de Groot 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 adopt
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:50:25
Andrew Savchenko 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 napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Long story short, this is USE=gtk
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko 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 second-leve
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
> Andrew Savchenko 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
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
Andrew Savchenko 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 team figure
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..
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 c
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
Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
Ben de Groot 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 opinion, i
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 shoul
34 matches
Mail list logo
