On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >>>> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >>>> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >>> >>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or >>> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make >>> users even more confused? >>> >>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. >>> And dependency string like this: >>> >>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >>> >>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >>> >>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps >>> like this for you? >> >> Shall we ban this too? >> >> ffmpeg? ( >> libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) >> !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) >> ) >> >> >> >> > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. > Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask.
This looks fine to me - I have no particular solution preference. I understand there's been objection to generic GUI USE flags in the past though. > > As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) > > which will generate something like this: > > qt4? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > > would help too. > > If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that > provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every > developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" I disagree but we're getting offtopic. The thread was raised regarding support of packages that at-most-one-of qt4 or qt5. Ben is of course right that for these packages, USE="qt4 qt5" automagically selecting qt5 is not the clearest result and has the potential for confusion. I feel that usability benefit of this choice outweighs the negatives. This leaves only a few options: 1. Leave the policy recommendation as-is (letting maintainers adopt or ignore it as they see fit) 2. Veto the policy recommendation and force something different (maintainers who disagree will likely either drop support for multiple qt versions or stop maintaining the package completely) 3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have multiple gui implementation USE flags set?)
