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 4F6D4139734 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:29:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AEF614275; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:29:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (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 668D614040 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbjg10 with SMTP id jg10so22954788igb.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:16 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ignAc9z6wbuGMOcmZ+VnBb2QcLumIxkS0aO9Y9OPAOw=; b=hNbjlfYfBzdmX5i2d8vlvktcsVrzIiB8aD6hNzyd4kGax9gZEY3U6uAe5XH4ZGf1oi hFV/1CFGvyfsy8akFD8G0EUdwK7gdpswWu35JW78ZEknRVX6TPcUL//nlntdzEOuqEQc MW9Ih+wjTgZQlKq8P4DRhFAaEn6NKA+d4u9oswYrCcm/XXQsIdnYy+s42KltwD0rRBm1 lBc/j64IUzb0dq3N53oAc7lavVOQMAjQ+hfkp79wvUVrec9M1x1OVEE9dqo1DaYvTqx5 SGMV1hzTZWWfcC6ICBVjqybywjncprt9CX5kaS2Yq0rBDI+TFzPJ7pE85OuzAD4ct+hW JdFw== 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 10.50.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr18678966igx.35.1439303356881; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.103.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55C9FB20.7080704@gentoo.org> References: <55C7AC24.2040503@gentoo.org> <55C9CA32.3060300@gentoo.org> <55C9F189.10102@gentoo.org> <55C9FB20.7080704@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:16 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0sv6yLirnieAyWt01_JdQ3i2e0E Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 34f9a5c7-35fc-4c7b-8d1e-81b60977997f X-Archives-Hash: d31fbc3b97eeeaca22bf616ff7a35ef1 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >> > > Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, > make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy > that ease life BOTH for developers and users. ++ I think the qt team taking the lead on this makes sense, but this is the sort of thing that just makes sense as a treewide policy. If people don't like their suggested policy they can take it to QA/council/whatever, but it makes more sense to have projects setting standards than having everybody doing their own thing. I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of those times it doesn't make sense. --=20 Rich