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 075EE1395EA for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE796E08FE; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (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 D207DE08F6 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioeg141 with SMTP id g141so40142681ioe.3 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:43:41 -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=Gl/d/TWXp6cWEbTzyZTsTc5pLqFprqHvqIHjGkwD3CA=; b=oY+fel+JD32mI4rGVpEIVtXW2IsOww2BTD3EPOTvznTYoiOpLGDKqP/YXm6grmhoL+ zFRL8YruSDYj8Z4lIQUMDhz3xUY/RM+qNis+2Seq5C6AjRDRwGQtBZALP89IpzRTms09 otUV+wK9Nc0+OLJhWvWZWp+NRC+UfIQZjsBVHLlgfs1QVJhN+Xv5nPKmoJawJEiO3yRv PLpd788+WQVb1PX+QebXDHymxy7d4vWYC6SyAVvnrZ9AW8E3l1X8yJMP1KC/12g8tiKn srDfuLLcgZqz6U3wOK5qAwtbS0kHwSVkTv/s07BJvBI5As9hre02sSdQncbUQDmw6tJj l53g== 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 10.107.128.214 with SMTP id k83mr9502759ioi.7.1438757021269; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.106.228 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:43:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1529265.CbNzYPavOm@localhost> <1603785.jMhK8ZuARh@liwardyna> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:43:40 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9pODB0SHF4VOr2CnzUhd5IeHSkM 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: f3f6d6ca-5ace-4c51-bb4a-8efd0db30955 X-Archives-Hash: 464106a33f3455fa5d1414b01cbc0fc5 On 5 August 2015 at 03:09, Davide Pesavento wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> 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. >> > > As tetromino pointed out, this is very far from the real current situation. Indeed, I was wrong here. We will need another solution. >> 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. >> > > Please go ahead and design and implement such functionality (a sort of > REQUIRED_USE defaults). Something along the lines of PYTHON_TARGETS could work. But personally, I'm happy with REQUIRED_USE. > In the meantime, we will apply the policies > written in the Qt project wiki page. Except for the one that is wrong. >> 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. >> > > We didn't have REQUIRED_USE at the time of the qt3->qt4 transition, so > this point is completely moot. We had something worse. That didn't prevent us from using it tho. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer