Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

[Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1556 bytes --]

George Shapovalov wrote:
> ??????, 21. ??????? 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno` ?? ????????:
>> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
>> -* says nothing to you? :)
> Now I am confused:
> My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is meant to mean "prefer qt3 
> over qt4", rather than "enable qt3 unconditionally and see what can be done 
> about qt4". So which one is that?
> If it is former (preference flag) I do not see aproblem there:
> -qt +qt3 = -qt  in such reading.
> So, basically the question is about interpretation of -qt +qt3 construct..
> 
> George

And, USE='qt -qt3 -qt4' means? See, this gets very tricky and makes for
butt-ugly dependency and other constructs in ebuilds once more than two
flags get involved, as the various combos start be nonsensical. Also,
users generally "rock" in inventing sucky use flag combos and
interpreting them in most whacky ways. Turns bugs into discussions about
what a particular use flag (or combo of flags) should mean. It's very
hard to ensure consistent use in all ebuilds. Will just do more harm
than good. I've seen a major decline of this type of bugs since the
gtk/gtk2 mess got more or less sorted out, we shouldn't repeat past
mistakes.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]