1 |
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 16:48 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit : |
2 |
> On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 |
6 |
> >> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 |
7 |
> >> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a |
8 |
> >> newer GCC and so on. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than |
13 |
> > gtk2. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we |
16 |
> are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason |
17 |
> the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something |
18 |
> that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific |
19 |
> toolkits for example). |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are |
22 |
> not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to |
23 |
> drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
This is the same codebase, but they really are slotted libs (that |
27 |
happens to have the same $PV): |
28 |
* different include path |
29 |
* different pkgconfig files |
30 |
* different sonames |
31 |
* ... |
32 |
|
33 |
If the $PV wasn't the same, there would be no question about have a USE |
34 |
flag or not, the answer would be obvious to anyone. So please stop |
35 |
pretending this is a good case for USE flag. |
36 |
|
37 |
Now if this is the only case (lib with support for two gtk+ versions but |
38 |
slottable/slotted) that is causing a problem to anyone here, I propose |
39 |
we go with the simplest fix, have a new package name. That will remember |
40 |
me of debian packaging :) |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
44 |
Gentoo |