On Wednesday 21 June 2006 15:45, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-qt +qt3:
This would only be available in 2 cases:
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they can both be enabled at once
In case 1, -qt +qt3 would enable qt3. In
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:09:15PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 15:45, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-qt +qt3:
This would only be available in 2 cases:
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and they're mutually exclusive
- Package supports both qt4 and qt3, and
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Owen wrote:
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Owen wrote:
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
there is no confusion about them. Adding
середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
-* says nothing to you? :)
Now I am confused:
My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is meant to mean prefer qt3
over
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:25:42 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the clarification
The goal is to avoid a double-flag combo to do a single thing. qt
always
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 12:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see
the same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.
I think there's a lot of good thoughts surrounding how to handle this. There
are 2 categories of
George Shapovalov wrote:
середа, 21. червень 2006 03:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò Ви написали:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
-* says nothing to you? :)
Now I am confused:
My understanding of that proposal was that qt3 is
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The goal is to avoid a double-flag combo to do a single thing. qt
always and only affects the _best_ available qt interface for that
package. qt# affects only _older_ available qt interfaces for that
package.
OK; so with this we're not providing a way to get an only
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 15:21, Caleb Tennis wrote:
Solution: The qt flag represents the latest qt major version for the
package. The maintainer can either put in another flag for the older
version (qt3?) or provide a separate package (e.g. dbus-qt3 ).
Although I can see why you suggest this
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 02:22:21PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
That makes for highly irreproduceable builds and particularly screws
with building packages on one machine and expecting them to work on
another. Same as autodetecting in configure scripts, except worse
because now we're doing it
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
are it is a lot of work.
I would like migration to this idea, that would have been what I've
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:56:58PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
are it is a lot
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:10, Joshua Jackson wrote:
I don't want to go down the path again of having two nearly identical
flags for a different slotted version of a framework. I'd like to see
just qt with a maintainer deciding if its going to be qt3 or qt4.
Unfeasible. GTK 1.2 was deprecated
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at the
same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is pretty
senseless), wouldn't something like
qt? ( || (=x11-libs/qt-3* =x11-libs/qt-4*))
be the best solution? It would allow the maintainer to set a
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:41, Simon Stelling wrote:
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at
the same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is
pretty senseless), wouldn't something like
We're not talking about interfaces, but more likely
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The use flag
will be for support of whichever version of Qt is supported (v3 or v4) for
the particular emerge.
I would like a single 'qt' USE
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:22:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The
use flag will be for support of whichever version of Qt is
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Problems with having 'qt' to mean latest and 'qt3' as specifically
version 3 include:
1) Target package depends on build system (assuming 'qt' is interpreted
as 'qt3' if only that is installed, rather than pulling in qt4 if not
already present).
What? There will still
On 6/20/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the
same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.
snip
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and
Mike Owen wrote:
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there
brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to
avoid in
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
gtk regards
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all. Probably,
if you want to put it
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely
offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt.
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE
users, that are, casually, the
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE
users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff.
In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler
and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are
On 6/20/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers
or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion.
To summarize:
- USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)
-* says nothing to you? :)
I was looking at the less work possible for both users and bug wranglers.
Still, I think you took too personally the
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)
-* says nothing to you? :)
Sure it does, but -* has always been unsupported and users are on their
own to
30 matches
Mail list logo
