From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-67277-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 CDEA313877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:13:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 273E0E0A96;
	Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:13:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A44DE09A4
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:13:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r5so4055941qcx.30
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        bh=B5yE/WeggulHPV3QtBKC2WqeXWlyErnCgXPXWz5KgOc=;
        b=ZdQ/7v6susr/5wEchvtzkEqKLK4wY22SwEL4IABP/JcRK1GdaomNWXJaFmE7oU0fqc
         +4tpLyVAxY8V1ANKJhPA1mHtNNGb3kXvCoRmdWh0uOTgpNO8a08MxfnkivTPb8BdGhI1
         s0w38x3N9xLodtKQGi5KuH/LUfzbmm43N0xZTa45ccqnkU/aiMdtitwsfrW0JuEbpmHi
         HmDZj2UQf3T4/dRt/vjEYuOCE5p7qGxJTQx4RCsnLWgEOBP73txinyj4vaiNFFMRajVH
         TNncAOkDCxdIEn645cEecKBWki7Qw8HQwa5ZVpoE6+pf8Mr20OnsRdzl7rXJusSqIHlg
         eP0g==
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 10.224.26.12 with SMTP id b12mr48227573qac.92.1408302807546;
 Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: davidepesa@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.193.201 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAB_KkxzZveXrtwvRs3qGdQ4ogAfCC_gUggCed-389uJkuj0OdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADfzvvbS7FAQ48KVjPC0eu+zQi2DOXEcneUTxeHW=NCcwuis_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB_KkxzZveXrtwvRs3qGdQ4ogAfCC_gUggCed-389uJkuj0OdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:13:27 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4VMA1Khrcrygub2GLLK6xYupilU
Message-ID: <CADfzvvb=82QOcMM9rsH5u_xiXZ3yMPJ2dc+Uaucxm6Xu6-k4ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qt5-build.eclass
From: Davide Pesavento <pesa@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: c220b43f-9dd6-4bf7-9ebb-426c00caf0c3
X-Archives-Hash: 59d355818f1c3185272e1968496b22c1

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> For the record: I /think/ that an eclass for packages supporting both qt4
> and qt5 (using multibuild.eclass) /might/ be useful. Looking forward to
> hearing Qt team opinion.

Maybe. But you'll have to convince me. We aren't planning on writing
the qt5 equivalent of qt4-r2.eclass; qmake-utils.eclass should
suffice. Therefore I don't see much usefulness in a "glue" eclass such
as the one you're proposing.

In any case, this is completely off-topic. Please start a separate
discussion or open a bug.

Thanks,
Pesa