| 1 |
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 2 |
> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't like |
| 3 |
> the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers will be looking at |
| 4 |
> their one corner of the portage tree, deciding that they are going to |
| 5 |
> handle the choice of gtk version without slotting, and not consider the |
| 6 |
> effect on the distro as a whole. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You know what's going to happen now, after the QA team decision? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> First of all, lots of developers will start renaming "gtk" to "gtk3" in |
| 11 |
> their ebuilds' IUSE. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Which means "gtk gtk3" will soon have to be added to USE in |
| 14 |
> targets/desktop/gnome/make.defaults (currently, the gnome profile |
| 15 |
> globally only has USE="gtk" because the "gtk3" flag is evil). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> And users of non-gnome profiles who use gnome applications will of |
| 18 |
> course manually add "gtk gtk3" to USE in their local make.conf. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Unfortunately, at the same time, lots of other developers are going to |
| 21 |
> start adding support for building against gtk2 XOR gtk3. Because of |
| 22 |
> course "Gentoo is about choice", and the more choices, the merrier, and |
| 23 |
> the gtk3 flag has been declared as supported by the QA team. And that |
| 24 |
> means lots of REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( gtk gtk3 )". |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> For the gnome team this results in a headache: maintaining a big list of |
| 27 |
> "-gtk" / "-gtk3" entries in targets/desktop/gnome/package.use so that |
| 28 |
> gnome users get a sensible choice and don't need to edit /etc/portage/* |
| 29 |
> just to emerge widely used desktop tools. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> But for non-gnome users who manually added USE=gtk3 to make.conf, this |
| 32 |
> means regular emerge conflicts after sync, forcing them to *guess* |
| 33 |
> whether "-gtk" or "-gtk3" in pacakge.use is the better choice. Maybe |
| 34 |
> with portage auto-suggesting the wrong solution just to add to the |
| 35 |
> wonderful user experience :/ |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
See, now this is an example of a good email as to why supporting both |
| 38 |
can be a hassle for more than just one desktop. Instead of telling me |
| 39 |
that I'm dumb for thinking it's a good idea to follow upstream's |
| 40 |
supported ideas, and that we should force one or the other. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The KDE team seems to be able to deal with it just fine, but somehow |
| 43 |
it's impossible and hard for the GNOME team. Why is that? What does |
| 44 |
KDE do differently that makes it feasible? |
Archives