From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Seiderer Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:35:33 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/6] package/qt5base: drop all legacy gcc requierements below 5.0 In-Reply-To: <20200419150305.5a898e07@windsurf.home> References: <20200418225906.17514-1-ps.report@gmx.net> <20200418225906.17514-2-ps.report@gmx.net> <20200419150305.5a898e07@windsurf.home> Message-ID: <20200420203533.399c1fd2@gmx.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Thomas, On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:03:05 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 00:59:02 +0200 > Peter Seiderer wrote: > > > As qt5 requires as minimum gcc 5.0 drop all legacy requierements below. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Seiderer > > --- > > package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in | 9 +-------- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > I have not applied this one, and neither the remaining patches in the > series. Indeed, we normally want to propagate "depends on" to all > reverse dependencies, even if in practice it is already not possible to > select a given option due to it being hidden by a "depends on" at a > higher level. > > We believe that always duplicating improves consistency and helps > avoiding mistakes. I agree that we are not 100% consistent on this > throughout the tree, but the direction we want to go to is to replicate > these "depends no", not get rid of them. > > I agree that this is a very 'opinionated' decision and I am myself a > bit split between the two possibilities we have. But the overall > consensus seems to be that we should have that duplication. > > So, I've marked PATCH 2/6 to 6/6 as Rejected. Fine with me ;-), and thanks for the detailed explanation... Regards, Peter > > Thanks! > > Thomas