George Shapovalov wrote: > середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали: >> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>> OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults. >> -* says nothing to you? :) > Now I am confused: > My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is meant to mean "prefer qt3 > over qt4", rather than "enable qt3 unconditionally and see what can be done > about qt4". So which one is that? > If it is former (preference flag) I do not see aproblem there: > -qt +qt3 = -qt in such reading. > So, basically the question is about interpretation of -qt +qt3 construct..
-qt +qt3: This would only be available in 2 cases: - Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive - Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they can both be enabled at once In case 1, "-qt +qt3" would enable qt3. In case 2, "-qt +qt3" would enable qt3. In other words, as I've been trying to say all along, there is no such thing as a preference flag here. That creates a 2-flag combination to get a single feature, which is _not_ what we want. There is a "qt" flag to indicate enabling the best available qt for that package, and there are "qt#" flags to indicate enabling older qt for that package. The downside to this setup is that it's difficult to avoid installing certain qt versions when it's unknown which version USE=qt will pull in for any given package. This favors an entirely versioned setup instead, and we should get rid of USE=qt altogether in favor of only USE=qt#. Thanks, Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
