| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:35:50PM +0200, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 19:20 +0200, Markus Nigbur wrote: |
| 3 |
> <snip much gtk2 use flag blah and old ideas> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The gtk2 flag is meant to be removed in time, not to be promoted even |
| 6 |
> more -than it was ever meant to be- as it is. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Do it right this time this time, don't try to redo it in as much a |
| 9 |
> crappy way as it is now. The proposals here are as much time-context |
| 10 |
> dependant as the current solution is. |
| 11 |
*cough* quicky question then... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What are you going to do when gtk v3 hits? Deprecate gtk v2? Expect |
| 14 |
upstream to quickly migrate all projects/code to v3? Cause projects |
| 15 |
sure moved off of v1 in a hurry :P |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Continuing, when v3 hits, abuse this same interdependent use flag |
| 18 |
trickery interdependent, or move to sane versioned use flags? |
| 19 |
Personally at this rate I'm expecting xmms to be gtk1 dependant for as |
| 20 |
long as gtk-1* compiles, probably right up through when gtk v3 some |
| 21 |
day hits :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you use the approach I've laid out (yes, not new, I laid it out in |
| 24 |
24439) you wouldn't have to dick around with deprecating a version, |
| 25 |
nor essentially mandating what version is default. You'd leave the |
| 26 |
total control over what versions the user wants to deal with in the |
| 27 |
hands of the _users_, and what versions the package supports would |
| 28 |
be represented properly/clearly in the IUSE. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So far... I've not really heard a good reason aside from "it's in |
| 31 |
place, we'll just deprecate gtk v1 instead of clean it up" for why |
| 32 |
this cannot be corrected _now_, or really in the past. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
hell, you even have volunteers. :) |
| 35 |
~brian |
Archives