On 11/08/15 23:39, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >> > > Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, > make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy > that ease life BOTH for developers and users.
With what authority? Whether we like it or not, no project has any formal authority to tell others how to handle "their" part of Gentoo. > > You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. > I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every > single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. > > So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own > bicycles... > > And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing > reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their > package.use > Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic.
