1 |
On 09/10/2015 03:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> So we are breaking consistency and introduce maintenance and |
5 |
>> configuration complexity, because we want to support a corner case that |
6 |
>> isn't consistently supported anyway and will not be (because that's what |
7 |
>> the gnome team said and most upstream maintainers do). |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> You'd actually have to start forking upstream projects if you are |
10 |
>> serious about this. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Again, I'm saying that maintainers should be free to support multiple |
13 |
> versions if they wish to do so. They should not be required to do so. |
14 |
> And yes, I do realize that this limits options for users, but they're |
15 |
> welcome to proxy-maintain packages that do support the versions they |
16 |
> wish to use. If they want to fork upstream they're even welcome to do |
17 |
> that, but obviously that isn't going to happen often. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I just don't think we should be in the business of saying "no" here. |
20 |
|
21 |
Again, your proposed use case is |
22 |
1) imaginary |
23 |
2) currently impossible to support, because there are lots of |
24 |
applications which either force gtk3 in the ebuild or have only gtk3 |
25 |
supported upstream. It will be pretty much impossible to not have gtk3 |
26 |
installed or loaded into RAM, unless you don't use a DE in the first |
27 |
place and stick to terminals. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>> I think a lot of people just go wild when they see configure switches |
32 |
>> and stuff everything into USE flags without really considering the |
33 |
>> impact or the usefulness. |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> It's not all about choice, it's also about sanity. |
36 |
>> |
37 |
> |
38 |
> And again, I'm just saying to leave it up to the maintainer. |
39 |
|
40 |
If this affects tree consistency and usability, then it is not just up |
41 |
to the maintainers. |