| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> But applications is whole different story... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> The maintainer makes the decision which toolkit is used and best |
| 6 |
> supported. If some application has initial port to gtk3, but still |
| 7 |
> lacks some features the gtk2 version still had, then maintainer |
| 8 |
> makes the smart choice of using the version that has all the |
| 9 |
> features, if the maintainer deems those features important. There is |
| 10 |
> no point in having them in parallel, it only increases the workload, |
| 11 |
> making maintainer do double-testing of the application, not to |
| 12 |
> mention the work it causes later when gtk2 is slated obsolete as |
| 13 |
> gtk1 is now |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Let's take Emacs as an example. The upstream package supports Athena |
| 16 |
widgets (both in Xaw and Xaw3d variants), Motif, GTK2, and GTK3. |
| 17 |
Currently there are five USE flags to control this, and I'm convinced |
| 18 |
that the right solution is to leave this choice to the user. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
(And if I was forced to decide on the toolkit for Emacs, then I |
| 21 |
wouldn't even pick GTK, for stability reasons ...) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ulrich |
Archives