On Sunday 29 November 2009 16:29:51 Dominik Kapusta wrote: > 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 > Scarabeus ( Tomas ) proposed this patch [1]. I think it is ok to apply it
[1]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~scarabeus/qt4-r2.eclass.patch -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sound/Sunrise/Kernel/Bug-wrangler] Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
