Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:26:16
Message-Id: 20061111223106.3c25e30d@sheridan.genone.homeip.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking by Alin Nastac
1 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:00 +0200
2 Alin Nastac <mrness@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Paul de Vrieze wrote:
5 > > On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
6 > >
7 > >> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
8 > >>
9 > >>> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate
10 > >>> reason to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's
11 > >>> reverse deps. However I'm still waiting for the explanation why
12 > >>> it is on that list. (I don't mind if it's masked for a good
13 > >>> reason, but I need to know that reason).
14 > >>>
15 > >> There is no immediate reason, of course. However, gtk+-1 and
16 > >> glib-1 will be removed as soon after the big cleanup as is
17 > >> feasible, and sylpheed-clasws-1.x is a gtk+-1 app, and therefore
18 > >> must go as well. I didn't generate the list, but my understanding
19 > >> was that it was intended to include all packages with a hard dep
20 > >> on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome 1.x.
21 > >>
22 > >
23 > > Gtk1 actually is broken for --as-needed. It's linking is broken
24 > > thanks to a libtool which refuses to link against a non-installed
25 > > libgdk.
26 > >
27 > >
28 > I think gtk+-1.2.10-r12 solved this problem.
29 >
30 > Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as
31 > we have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do
32 > with gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the tree.
33
34 To stop people guessing around, I had a chat with compnerd on irc where
35 he explained that sc-1.x was on the list because it already had a gtk2
36 successor so would be "safe" to remove, and that there wouldn't be any
37 problem with keeping it if I wanted that.
38 (But as I already considered removing it myself for a while I agreed
39 that it's ok to go if it's done properly).
40
41 Marius
42
43 --
44 Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
45
46 In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
47 Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
48 --
49 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking Lorenzo Marussi <lorenzo@×××××××××××××××.it>