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 1A0E913800E for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BD42E07E4; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DD6E07CC for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163041B40BA for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:59:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLDMbJO-fDG2 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AE621B4065 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sv03q-0008F7-0l for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:59:34 +0200 Received: from athedsl-344012.home.otenet.gr ([85.72.199.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:59:34 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-344012.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:59:34 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fwd: Heads up for Qt5 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:59:17 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-344012.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120720 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 6f58580f-787a-4057-bb4b-de9bd0068e1a X-Archives-Hash: c4f5c6b578b9e3328f5bf1b268237e5a On 28/07/12 08:22, Ben de Groot wrote: > In preparation for that, we want to ask maintainers of all ebuilds in > the tree with dependencies on Qt4, to make sure that they have the > proper slot. Otherwise your package may pull in Qt5 while it may not > in fact support it. This can be trouble if the application actually works with Qt5. It might depend on Qt4 but has no problems with Qt5 (contrary to Qt3 vs Qt4, Qt5 is mostly compatible with much of existing Qt4 code), needlessly pulling-in Qt4. Many applications simply build and run as-is and no code changes are necessary. So what would be the methodology of making sure a package has the proper slot?