On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > [...] > This policy will allow to USE both qt versions whichever is > available preferring newer one. Quite reasonable approach. > Alternatives (^^() and ??()) will require micromanagement (e.g. > pagkage.use.conf) for dozens if not hundreds of packages for no > good reason. If someone still needs to override such policy (e.g. > to use qt4 when both are available), this can be done by > per-package configuration. > > My idea is that packages should be fully controllable, but choises > of default behaviour should be done so, that in most cases > micromanagement will not be necessary. > > I like this qt policy and I'm not sure if it violates any current > rule.
See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies under 1.4 and 1.5. QA has spoken out pretty clearly against unversioned gtk or qt useflags, and in favour of explicit versioned useflags. Dropping the explicit qt4 useflag in these cases goes against (at least the spirit of) this. > [...] > So I propose to add somewhere to devmanual/policies the following > recommendation: "If package supports several versions of the same > technology (e.g. qt4 and qt5) and more than one is enabled by USE > flags, ebuild should prefer the later one (in terms of technology > generation).". If we adopt this, we should make sure the users understand this policy, because it hides certain details from the user. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
