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 E2BBD139737 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42B8E14267; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:33:37 +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 5A32A14225 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so153298659iod.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:33:35 -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=c4KIWMlk/yB6wEbtL/HsdX+oE5PSThVSfC9w6T96r5o=; b=GEqXv47C8G7wINSHyIknb51d8/2Ug4CgQBw9TsLSDgFkah6e+Nzifk9Z4NPFpSZKQN f3SDYYEKibMv1eK5KjtyJBTqT5JCjhPICwUUGXudoqbI67Rj2wFA8zOS/UYcKbOI7igV xWLEjj1dkq40n+ZoiiHtWvX/pHyGUJUeehLdeeNwWKfjOJFE4LNw1irlJHig12RdywOL /r76o+lrvLbh+M9lDeztQpUHJ29u96wwW/xiqSEt4FtJC37QyK5uHRVU3Uh7zaSpON95 /OKnFV1niHOuuFDtiFp0JHK7+lOI6tpJ+fQvhW3k8GRmgVdjUievctcafI8tXRp1Hqjw 9RrQ== 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 10.107.6.65 with SMTP id 62mr24812559iog.93.1439321615604; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.103.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55C9D15E.6060506@gentoo.org> <55CA4413.5090009@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:33:35 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rTS5Ls92t-gii-jIOF8Bb8AINU0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 0e1e09e8-4691-4159-ba4c-d14f00a39a80 X-Archives-Hash: 02d2febf4c1a607b21c332b0689fa53b On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate > the preferred > interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with > a sequential > set of preferred order. > Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users who care can > select the kit they want, and users who don't care/know get the default. That still neglects the case where a user just wanted to say "use the best version of qt for any particular package," which I'd argue is probably the most common use case. It may not make sense to have one global preference system-wide, and managing it per-package is painful. It really does make sense to leave it up to the maintainer, while still letting people either turn off qt entirely if they'd prefer to do so, or override the default implementation when they really want to. There is always requiring any package that supports qt to enable either qt4 or qt5 by default, so the typical user who wants qt does nothing, the typical user who doesn't want qt sets USE="-qt4 -qt5", and then anybody who wants to override things per-package can do so. That is simple to define in ebuilds, and you can set REQUIRED_USE to prevent them both from being set. It just means having qt support by default all over the tree and forcing people who don't want it to explicitly turn it off. That is simple to do at least, but not really in keeping with the general spirit of the base profile being a minimal one. And it would still be difficult to do anything at the profile level if it were appropriate to do so. -- Rich