From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-67209-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4137F13877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16001E0A88;
	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21EA6E0A7F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:28:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uq10so5669854igb.8
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:28:56 -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=S7pBvBwLNG0XrfkaBxIT/coQDhx2g0f4KEAhDxeMtew=;
        b=glKd/j5WVKsI/+IEjnxB7QQEOcZwFILKKdg1VIuJOEfPuH1Xeh3M5Ft53VDJr7xtd3
         ilbweDECNNGLnMsZbK72K4xEY/MeCUZ2PXfulteWMs+zXD/50vVeyOKYdPbd5c94wHMQ
         H9kXuXjGsE5WcHdgJkoyy8jAmnl/tneVCn3t2AfUam0K/DBVFV6476zMYDkxDunEkQyR
         kaOixOWK0lCk8K6iEkXL1C+FRuvUiMWnmFXs1fNMFg7p1bofTKHU2dVK4iEtOUMVkuOE
         5gGEqSg46e4kyBkoDqxlvpZQovBoez/HI4oTOFAEq4j+JrfXOGzmYZulltILiDrqvxa6
         hfMg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.111.132 with SMTP id ii4mr35902657igb.8.1407821336067;
 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yngwin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.232.38 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGbUWSKf=6iRiGf7ByL45jfvF+vo26pxGCqrb2Vy0AxzoqtXAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGbUWSKf=6iRiGf7ByL45jfvF+vo26pxGCqrb2Vy0AxzoqtXAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:28:56 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: X6fS3NgwWPveOuaOwQmbuRZtt3Q
Message-ID: <CAB9SyzRLjr75f368r2YuvgQhifAaA0Wc0vraxGCG9d+udWWBgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Supporting both Qt4 and Qt5 builds
From: Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 57cef2a5-9f71-4fb0-b7f8-4c1dfa8da460
X-Archives-Hash: 78495382fbfde2bc46a2e0168ffcd3e7

On 10 August 2014 18:51, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking of converting a few ebuilds (x11-libs/qwt,
> dev-libs/kqoauth, net-libs/qxmpp among them) to support building with
> both Qt4 and Qt5.
>
> Should this better be done by adding the corresponding useflags (qt4
> and qt5 respectively) or by slotting?
>
> What's your opinion on this?
>

The Qt team has always recommended the useflag method for packages
that support more than one major version of Qt. This is also what we
implement ourselves. So for consistency's sake, please stick with the
useflags.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer