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 F3D01139734 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:36:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D61E3142A5; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (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 E675F1424D for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so10744936iod.2 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:36:05 -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=uwKvNsHsUTDPK1LSaUyvV4+eI9bdvTZul8NK8QpsMdc=; b=w5Y7OvOAPGGm8Idgf90v83xq25t5/iECqmBbLMde8vuB8dMmftveRQJ676XnzWNPTz R3jDBIGvekNu3I5La4h6ezNqNDB2f1tBzKACoihX75B3U2Vpmp3rV5MDsdsWxKBtwhRf bLPQhJRpAe6RUvRASSwxoqGijFsYsvjEJ4WnwTLlsV/3iMJ0kW3Evp010QuXbjn5Mifg 5/Q/rMoYbzGP45J+qPLgldtYFictjqcO9CRbaUp83bf1/H5YsQxwrojO1hrYqfKJjjw4 1Tyt7KzYIBqSNE7r6IDb6eDscAky0FubEHLZQi6U7ovzk+qBpWf7ooEKRiMUk8bQ8GCh X1wQ== 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 10.107.14.78 with SMTP id 75mr28413718ioo.17.1439300165108; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.103.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:36:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55C9F64B.9060303@gentoo.org> References: <55C7AC24.2040503@gentoo.org> <55C9CA32.3060300@gentoo.org> <55C9F189.10102@gentoo.org> <20150811141156.1c883f7d@red.yakaraplc.local> <55C9F64B.9060303@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:36:04 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9VmN4OYChnF6cJjfrxn5vP7lmRw 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: 18c3660b-6f07-4c44-bbe3-4303f8dabd8c X-Archives-Hash: 1810466346865476bc81397c1a08d113 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 >> Sergey Popov wrote: >> >>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >>> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >>> >>> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where >>> qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is >>> the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are >>> enabled or disabled >> >> That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. >> >> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1d= c9b30df >> > > But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge > difference to me :-) > If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are we saying that any package that could use either always enable one of them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, and then users have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be the opposite of how we normally do things, but it does let you get away from having lots of users turning on qt. Normally we'd just turn them on in a profile, but you can't do this if some packages need qt4, some need qt5, and some fail if both are enabled. --=20 Rich