Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Sunday 02 of August 2015 21:37:36 Rich Freeman wrote: > | The approach qt4=qt4 > | and qt5=qt5 seems simpler on the surface, but it means that users end > | up having to set tons of per-package configurations when they don't > | actually care which one they use, > > I will risk a thesis that if they didn't care, they wouldn't have chosen > Gentoo... > > regards > MM > >
You may lose that one if I'm seeing your point correctly. See Alan and my earlier replies. I have both qt4 and qt5 set and I leave which is best to use to the devs to control in the ebuild. If for example qt5 does not work well for a package, let the ebuild pick qt4 for that package. If qt5 works reliably, then build with qt5. If I have a problem with it, then I can set it in package.use if needed, doesn't build or function correctly or I want qt5 even if it isn't stable. As things switch to qt5 more, I don't have to do anything except let the updates roll out as they become stable and the dev sets that in the ebuild. Keep in mind, devs already do a LOT of the selection process. Otherwise, we could set any and every USE flag and package combination there is without any restrictions. In other words, we could have USE flag soup even if it is known that two or more USE flags clash. As it is, if a dev knows two flags clash, we get a nifty error message and then we get to figure out how to get it to work right, sometimes portage's error message is cryptic to say the least. If I took your point wrong, my apologies. Lowly user. Dale :-) :-)
