-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 11/08/15 09:04 AM, 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.
> 
> 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.

Woah -- why would qt5 be a dep when both flags are off?  If you have a
package that -needs- one version enabled, then in that case I do fully
support REQUIRED_USE="|| ( qt4 qt5 )".  '||' being the one-or-more-of
operator.

The other alternative here would be that there is no qt5 flag, just a
qt4 one, and the qt4 one toggles qt5 off and qt4 on.  And that just
isn't pretty, so let's not do that.

And using this form of REQUIRED_USE I believe (if I understand what
QA's and QT's stances are on this) is not in conflict with either
group, right?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKDosACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2Z8QD/Z+NvyJ0VXoIQH/KRPy8Asete
iXZTpA1QgLDh4xYJE9YBAOTV61mJP472jBu/kEmJOK9cZPFW9PfJ15I0IvoBWdNF
=1oaz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to