Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:55 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
> >>> to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps.
> >>> However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list.
> >>> (I don't mind if it's masked for a good reason, but I need to know
> >>> that reason).
> >>>
> >> There is no immediate reason, of course.  However, gtk+-1 and glib-1
> >> will be removed as soon after the big cleanup as is feasible, and
> >> sylpheed-clasws-1.x is a gtk+-1 app, and therefore must go as well.  I
> >> didn't generate the list, but my understanding was that it was intended
> >> to include all packages with a hard dep on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome
> >> 1.x.
> >>
> >
> > Gtk1 actually is broken for --as-needed. It's linking is broken thanks to a
> > libtool which refuses to link against a non-installed libgdk.
> >
> >
> I think gtk+-1.2.10-r12 solved this problem.
>
> Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as we
> have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do with
> gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the tree.
>

We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1.  We would very much prefer
it get removed.  If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I
guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches
for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get assigned to gnome.

Note that maintaining it basically means being upstream, as there is no
upstream for it.

Daniel