| 1 |
> <...> |
| 2 |
> I'm sorry, I wrote too briefly. hasufell seems to be saying that gtk2 |
| 3 |
> should be deprecated now. I'm just agreeing with Rich that if upstream |
| 4 |
> supports both *and* the maintainer wants to support both, there's no |
| 5 |
> reason to force them to only support one. |
| 6 |
> <...> |
| 7 |
> As Rich has mentioned already, if upstream thinks they support gtk2 but |
| 8 |
> it crashes when using gtk2, I am perfectly fine with the maintainer |
| 9 |
> closing the bug as WONTFIX because upstream broke things. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I absolutelly double that. That is the point which I evangelizing above. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
hasufell's statement about gtk2 looks like <some-other-devs> statement that we |
| 14 |
should drop "that your eudev, and, better, openrc too" and force users to move |
| 15 |
to SysD. Which would be a crime against Gentoo Philosophy. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But, as usual, there is a sidenote: as you remember, we've dropped Qt3/KDE3 |
| 18 |
packages over the time (I remeber how I've upgraded to KDE4 about 7 years ago |
| 19 |
and there was situation, similar to current gtk2-3 one. And just right now |
| 20 |
there is another similar situation happening around Qt4-5). There is point to |
| 21 |
do such thing when upstream drop that support. Only. Also, there is a point to |
| 22 |
drop gtk2-only packages later, when upstreams will die. Until that, such |
| 23 |
proposiions looks like tyranny. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
mva |
Archives