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 755691395E4 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F89A14044; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:33:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) (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 2383614024 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:33:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so64135255igb.0 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:33:57 -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=L8k64/7TMdF01FUG45El3CfbUn4KLBHU3r685JJNaxI=; b=AToXFgMajl0uf1KEJ4t0rNf9NuHMoL00RC/Z8kGZi0ozSpdqW4jXRRcaMHGu/qhxv9 PjwrjN0W5eji9mLPI7S1+mm/M+JHhSnR/omAuJ/otmLluPf/CzSSiSuhR7Y2f8pE8s4d BZBkdGRUDWBnyntAK1GsmWufno395LogarEWi874WThgfNLuSkEaB8TZUOwMQIZe6xIF pOkV/2aje9TEQbKH9M5Re+xkbn6reTdskYPMuLls3+/vGbNZRzsC7r/0gb17bfueUWbA 1NiJgo6zopDOeCz1jSssbW/ABujKJk08VhIRmL6bS2AjcRHb4MBT+QtqcMvKs6E4Hso8 izpA== 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 10.50.60.37 with SMTP id e5mr19918231igr.91.1438572837575; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.106.228 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:33:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150802203354.1f6ba9254be090487ec48380@gentoo.org> References: <20150802203354.1f6ba9254be090487ec48380@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:33:57 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: g9lFhOTKuzjD9GM88FAbrXDMfvQ 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: 6e8a35c1-6bb6-416d-99bb-8d06cf04a73c X-Archives-Hash: 28e262198824dd81186396c7ff915280 On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > [...] > This policy will allow to USE both qt versions whichever is > available preferring newer one. Quite reasonable approach. > Alternatives (^^() and ??()) will require micromanagement (e.g. > pagkage.use.conf) for dozens if not hundreds of packages for no > good reason. If someone still needs to override such policy (e.g. > to use qt4 when both are available), this can be done by > per-package configuration. > > My idea is that packages should be fully controllable, but choises > of default behaviour should be done so, that in most cases > micromanagement will not be necessary. > > I like this qt policy and I'm not sure if it violates any current > rule. See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies under 1.4 and 1.5. QA has spoken out pretty clearly against unversioned gtk or qt useflags, and in favour of explicit versioned useflags. Dropping the explicit qt4 useflag in these cases goes against (at least the spirit of) this. > [...] > So I propose to add somewhere to devmanual/policies the following > recommendation: "If package supports several versions of the same > technology (e.g. qt4 and qt5) and more than one is enabled by USE > flags, ebuild should prefer the later one (in terms of technology > generation).". If we adopt this, we should make sure the users understand this policy, because it hides certain details from the user. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer