George Shapovalov wrote:
> середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали:
>> 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..

-qt +qt3:

This would only be available in 2 cases:

- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they can both be enabled at once

In case 1, "-qt +qt3" would enable qt3. In case 2, "-qt +qt3" would
enable qt3.

In other words, as I've been trying to say all along, there is no such
thing as a preference flag here. That creates a 2-flag combination to
get a single feature, which is _not_ what we want. There is a "qt" flag
to indicate enabling the best available qt for that package, and there
are "qt#" flags to indicate enabling older qt for that package.

The downside to this setup is that it's difficult to avoid installing
certain qt versions when it's unknown which version USE=qt will pull in
for any given package. This favors an entirely versioned setup instead,
and we should get rid of USE=qt altogether in favor of only USE=qt#.

Thanks,
Donnie