| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +0000, John N. Laliberte wrote: |
| 2 |
> * "but you are taking away choice!" - If a program has both GTK2 and GTK3 |
| 3 |
> interfaces, there are many ways to allow for testing of the experimental |
| 4 |
> interface. For instance, package.mask with a revision number. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
package.mask isn't a perfect fit from where I sit; if it's already merged |
| 7 |
(say for development), but the developer has masked gtk-3, all pkgs |
| 8 |
that prefer gtk-3 will continue linking against it till gtk-3 is |
| 9 |
unmerged regardless of the masking. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Part of the reason I prefer use flags here; aside from that, use flags |
| 12 |
aren't features, strictly conditionals (intentionally vague) :) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> * use the proper, built in methods for this: add "=x11-libs/gtk+-1*" to |
| 15 |
> /etc/portage/package.mask. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If merged, need to unmerge it to block any further linking to it if |
| 18 |
using || () deps. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Issues above aren't blockers at all, just pointing it out since it |
| 21 |
does have a minor downside, one that should be mentioned in any |
| 22 |
documentation that tells people how to migrate from gtk(N-1) to gtkN. |
| 23 |
There are some downsides that should probably be made clear. |
| 24 |
~harring |
Archives