On 3 August 2015 at 11:30, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> I want to use fooplayer and bargrapher which are two qt-based
>>> applications. fooplayer only supports qt4, and bargrapher only
>>> supports qt5. What USE flags should I set, without resto
On 3 August 2015 at 01:33, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
> [...]
> This policy will allow to USE both qt versions whichever is
> available preferring newer one. Quite reasonable approach.
> Alternatives (^^() and ??()) will require micromanagement
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> I want to use fooplayer and bargrapher which are two qt-based
>> applications. fooplayer only supports qt4, and bargrapher only
>> supports qt5. What USE flags should I set, without restorting to
>> per-package flags?
>
> These packages wou
On 3 August 2015 at 09:37, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> I find setting USE="qt4 -qt5" a lot more obvious than having USE="qt" (why
>> not
>> USE="X" ?) which then does different things based on another useflag,
>> sometimes. Maybe. It's horribly i
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> I find setting USE="qt4 -qt5" a lot more obvious than having USE="qt" (why not
> USE="X" ?) which then does different things based on another useflag,
> sometimes. Maybe. It's horribly inconsistent and even might change result over
> time, whi
On Monday 03 August 2015 00:34:51 Ben de Groot wrote:
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
> policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
>
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt
> versions". In my opinion, in the c
On Sunday 02 August 2015 22:22:28 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
>
> NP-Hardass wrote:
> > ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user.
> > The user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some
> > convoluted other expression that
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2015-08-02 23:59 UTC.
Removals:
games-fps/tremulous 2015-07-30 15:17:39 mr_bones_
Additions:
dev-ml/ocaml-base64 2015-07-27 07:49:45 aballier
dev-util/Orange
# Patrice Clement (3 Aug 2015)
# Broken and no releases in 10 years (!).
# Removal in 30 days. See bug #451790.
www-servers/skunkweb
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:14:47 -0400
NP-Hardass wrote:
> ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user.
> The user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some
> convoluted other expression that they don't understand.
>
> I am all for the use of ^^ add the defaul
^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The user
receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some convoluted other
expression that they don't understand.
I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason.
Additionally, ?? has the same effect of be
Our bug queue has 96 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
>> for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what is
>> 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'q
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
> Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>
>> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
>> policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
>>
>> I have an issue with the policy adopt
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:50:25
Andrew Savchenko napisał(a):
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
> > Andrew Savchenko napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Long story short, this is USE=gtk
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> This is a clean solution for developers and maintainers, but not
> for ordinary users — they will confused by "qt qt4 qt5": "what is
> 'qt', how is it different from 'qt4' and 'qt5'. What you are really
> doing is implementing second-leve
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:35:27 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
> Andrew Savchenko napisał(a):
>
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
> > > policy that handled the case cleanly and
Dnia 2015-08-02, o godz. 21:21:03
Andrew Savchenko napisał(a):
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
> > policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of
> > Qt-like policy. Then Qt team figure
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:27:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Long story short, this is USE=gtk once again. GNOME team had a
> policy that handled the case cleanly and QA outvoted it in favor of
> Qt-like policy. Then Qt team figured out their policy was unfriendly,
> and 'fixed' it with this ugly hack..
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these
> ebuild policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two
> Qt versions". In my opinion, in the case where
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:34:51 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
> policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
>
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt
> versions". In my opinion, in the c
On 8/2/15 7:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> What would be really clean is USE='qt qt5' (or 'qt qt4'), alike GNOME
> team policy. USE=qt would mean 'any version of Qt, if optional', and
> qt4/qt5 would be used to switch between Qt4/Qt5. If Qt would be
> obligatory, no USE=qt would apply. If only one Qt
Dnia 2015-08-03, o godz. 00:34:51
Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
> policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
>
> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt
> versions". In my opinion, i
Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild
policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies
I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt
versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a choice
between qt4 or qt5, we shoul
24 matches
Mail list logo
