Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
Subject: Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:33:47 +0200
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote:
> > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is,
> > > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then
> > > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features.
> > 
> > Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not
> > acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike
> > the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild
> > packaging.
> 
> No-one is saying "don't ship webkit". What is being asked is that a) you
> ship webkit with a subset of functionality disabled if necessary for
> now, and b) that you provide a general description of what you can't
> provide cleanly using existing functionality.

Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and gtk3
support. This is needed because gentoo has gtk2 based desktop/apps and
because we want to ship gnome3 for example.

Cool thing is that webkit supports being built with each toolkit without
conflicting with the build from the other toolkit hence we ended up
using SLOTS.

Then the problem is that you cannot have two ebuilds of the same version
in two different slots.

We then had a couple of solutions, most notable being:
 * using -r${SLOT}${PATCHLEVEL} suffix, being a strictly increasing
number that is not expected to go over 300 which is the start of the
sequence for the other slot.
 * using a new package name, duplicating ebuilds

> If you really think it's necessary to come up with a workaround like
> this, though, then you should be mailing the list and asking for QA or
> Council approval, rather than doing it and then asking for forgiveness
> later.

As far as I remember the subject was discussed (at least) once on this
mailing list before the problem even occurred for gtk2/gtk3 handling and
everyone was ok with it.

Shall we add that subject to next council meeting or do we just wait for
QA's opinion here ?

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
Gentoo
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
Replies:
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- hasufell
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Alexandre Rostovtsev
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Gilles Dartiguelongue
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
Next by thread:
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
Previous by date:
RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Next by date:
Re: gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.