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 5D026139734 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A17A1E0896; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:03:20 +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 pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98410E085A for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZPA8x-0005U1-LG for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:03:08 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-133-158.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net ([118.209.133.158]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:03:07 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-133-158.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:03:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:02:55 +1000 Message-ID: References: <55C7AC24.2040503@gentoo.org> <21959.47077.385371.459100@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <55C9CB9F.1060603@gentoo.org> <55C9F2F9.6050302@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-133-158.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 In-Reply-To: <55C9F2F9.6050302@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 128f9cc6-9cd5-46a7-a8c8-2eeb55c4d198 X-Archives-Hash: c0324fd2f2dc8ab13846e0f300e5ecec On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >>>> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >>>> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >>> >>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or >>> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make >>> users even more confused? >>> >>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. >>> And dependency string like this: >>> >>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >>> >>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >>> >>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps >>> like this for you? >> >> Shall we ban this too? >> >> ffmpeg? ( >> libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) >> !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) >> ) >> >> >> >> > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. > Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. This looks fine to me - I have no particular solution preference. I understand there's been objection to generic GUI USE flags in the past though. > > As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) > > which will generate something like this: > > qt4? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > > would help too. > > If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that > provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every > developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" I disagree but we're getting offtopic. The thread was raised regarding support of packages that at-most-one-of qt4 or qt5. Ben is of course right that for these packages, USE="qt4 qt5" automagically selecting qt5 is not the clearest result and has the potential for confusion. I feel that usability benefit of this choice outweighs the negatives. This leaves only a few options: 1. Leave the policy recommendation as-is (letting maintainers adopt or ignore it as they see fit) 2. Veto the policy recommendation and force something different (maintainers who disagree will likely either drop support for multiple qt versions or stop maintaining the package completely) 3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have multiple gui implementation USE flags set?)