On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:33:16 -0700 Nick Vinson <nvinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2016 1:15 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 03/06/2016 21:34, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > >> > >>> USE=gui is about building the graphical user interface that an > >>> application offers, when it is optional. That's it. What > >>> dependencies that means and so on have nothing to do with the flag. > >> > >> > >> That reasoning may have been valid many years ago when qt was the only > >> toolkit around. All GUI-optional apps back then either used qt or wrote > >> their own primitives directly to X. Fast-forward to 2016. You now have > >> X/Wayland/Mir/qt4/qt5/gtk2/gtk3/fltk/whatever. If a package can have a > >> GUI from more than one of the above, you *NEED* to select implementation > >> type *SOMEWHERE* (make.conf/package.use/profile). Deal with it. > >> > >>> You get that use flags are not supposed to represent dependencies > >>> right, but features of the package?? > >> > >> > >> Gentoo currently assumes that users are reasonably competent, and that > >> if they've selected specific graphics libs to be linked to a package, > >> that they've done it for a reason; i.e. to enable a GUI. > > > > > > Walter, > > > > I think you're missing where the devs want to take this and what USE is > all about. It's about *features*, not about dependencies. > > > > USE="gtk" is a dependency. > > No. It is a feature. However, it is a feature named after the > dependencies needed to enable it. If a package has a hard dependency on > libgtk, a USE flag would not be added, but a soft dependency on libgtk > means that libgtk support is a feature or part of a feature (the feature > being you get to choose which toolkit is used). > > If it was a dependency, then packages such as XFCE and evince would have to > use flags. However they don't. > > So enough with the these are dependency use flags and those are feature use > flags. It's not true and it's a poor attempt to try and force this idea > through. If this is idea is a good one, such tactics aren't needed. If > it's not, the tactics aren't warranted. Your statement is not true and is a poor attempt to try and block the idea you don't like. If it would be a bad one, such tactics wouldn't be needed on your side... -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpl41ALcRGnN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
