From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FsvuF-0000Dv-81 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:09:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k5L67etF014547; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:07:40 GMT Received: from mail-relay-2.tiscali.it (mail-relay-2.tiscali.it [213.205.33.42]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5L63KOl003092 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:03:20 GMT Received: from c1358217.kevquinn.com (84.222.84.177) by mail-relay-2.tiscali.it (7.3.104) id 44910DAA000BAD94 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:03:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:12:38 +0200 From: "Kevin F. Quinn" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4? Message-ID: <20060621081238.36f628df@c1358217.kevquinn.com> In-Reply-To: <44988140.2060402@gentoo.org> References: <8f5ca2210606201602h4867b91dif9562e631c790239@mail.gmail.com> <44988140.2060402@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_mdIpOkqe4WAUsIEFZo=qo_c"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: c1b0c4fc-5435-4ae0-ab96-51dd2edf29b6 X-Archives-Hash: 071616a2cd99a7298a9a523b92a78ea1 --Sig_mdIpOkqe4WAUsIEFZo=qo_c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0700 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Owen wrote: > > From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use > > flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and > > there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there > > brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to > > avoid in the future. >=20 > That depends on how it's done. If it's done in a simple and obvious > way (USE=3Dqt means use the best available qt, USE=3Dqt# for other weird where "available" means "available in the tree for arch", not "already installed on build system" (just to be clear - correct me if I'm wrong) > stuff that most people don't care about and so can ignore), it > shouldn't be that bad. So are you suggesting something like: qt - Add support for QT/include QT GUI qt3 - build for version 3 of QT where dependencies might be something like: qt? ( qt3? ( >=3Ddev-libs/qt-3.3.6 =3D dev-libs/qt-4.1 ) ) for a package that can build against either qt3 (3.3.6 or higher) or qt4 (4.1 or higher) but not both simultaneously, and perhaps: qt? ( >=3D dev-libs/qt-4.1 qt3? ( >=3Ddev-libs/qt-3.3.6 =3D dev-libs/qt-4.1 ) qt3? ( >=3Ddev-libs/qt-3.3.6