On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:54:30 Thomas Anderson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:46:59PM +0200, Dominik Kapusta wrote: > > Hello guys! > > > > We, the Qt team, would like to include a new eclass in the tree. > > > > The qt4-r2 eclass is meant to help with ebuilds for Qt-based > > (qmake-based, to be precise) applications. > > Haven't look at the content yet. But the name is going to make things > extremely confusing. I can see people using qt4-r2 just because it has -r2 > (so it is newer than qt4), even if they should use qt4. If you really need > to introduce a new eclass, you should use a name that accurately reflects > what it does. > > Cheers, > Thomas >
The name is actually the simplest possible, and yes, our goal is to switch to qt4-r2 in the end (which I mentioned at the end of my first mail). So in general, once qt4-r2 is in, no one should use qt4.eclass. We had several name options, e.g. qt4-tng but qt4-r2 seemed the most straightforward. plus -r2 adds the Gentoo flavor, hence is better than e.g. qt4-v2 :) That said, we want qt4-r2 to be a new eclass for Qt-based ebuilds. And we can't just make changes to qt4.eclass since there are too many ebuilds using it and we would surely break the tree. Cheers, Dominik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
