From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03131395E7 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F0131406B; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B5AE07BA for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so5204371iod.2 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:59:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gftgFm4dC1eWNItk5DYKKxKFsMlbn8jyVYV1tZjEHnE=; b=Max1B25Ys6fuTRrihcJreiSHtpOIhsakYTVrb/8L1CbKFnFuveySy9+IbmvmiKy26C CD92IsL0snoeq6/K06EWsi0BG4ZQKIPmvZbcBV1j+9XWmbVYzhosv8DwJuhFmhcLbUuf BJbxVpK0soz47dzrqOUdNZuritmZ/X2RdDTPxuFOIFr0Bw5q7AtFM/4GItJeMAhAqPwu 2bffJwgx3wgsUgHgasX7iNeXyPteqVLXpbN9T1XzsA4DsZTUpcZILh2n6fQebzH1lZP6 tOOQqiHqR05Cs88u1A9IRJd37c5U3Xt8wLgyWGAiJJEG4I3/DHiZ5IrbSRTVNEVB7PE4 ZFtg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.25.80 with SMTP id 77mr1694689ioz.62.1438660780631; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.106.228 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:59:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1529265.CbNzYPavOm@localhost> <1603785.jMhK8ZuARh@liwardyna> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:59:40 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L9Xeld8vUtL1WwSCDap_tvtNdww Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] useflag policies From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 223e052d-dca8-4534-8829-ec182a482115 X-Archives-Hash: d0de2fe41167a68aafbd8dffa8349989 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 instead of telling them "don't touch" like most > other distros, but if they don't care we still provide reasonable > defaults. And that is exactly what we do. The kde profile enables qt4, the plasma profile enables qt5, the other profiles have no qt* useflags enabled. These are reasonable defaults. Of course some users will proceed to enable both qt4 and qt5 globally in their make.conf, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to then deal with adding exceptions to package.use for those packages where exactly-one-of is required. In my opinion, this is the way Gentoo has always worked, and we should simply recommend users to only set one of the qt* useflags as globally enabled, if they want to prevent such micro-management. Hiding the qt4 option is in my opinion the wrong solution around people complaining after they have consciously enabled both flags. If this is not acceptable (or "absolutely unusable" as one dev put it), then we need a proper solution, which a) will not hide the qt4 option, and b) will prevent triggering required_use blockage by choosing qt5 over qt4 in case both are enabled, while c) informing the user about this. This probably requires new eclass or even EAPI functionality. In the meantime, we should stick with the policies adopted at the qt3 to qt4 transition (explicit versioned useflags) and let the user deal with per-package management if they enable both flags. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer