| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Andrej Kacian wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes should |
| 5 |
> > > go last, along with gtk1 itself. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Point, set, and match. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as |
| 13 |
> they're working and there's apps. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm just curious, but why? It's not like people can't get GTK+ themes |
| 16 |
themselves quite easily. Personally, I don't think we should have |
| 17 |
themes (for anything) in the tree except for two cases: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
#1. The theme is considered part of an upstream package set, fex. if |
| 20 |
GNOME or KDE ship with a small set of themes, they should be included |
| 21 |
#2. The themes are made by Gentoo |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as |
| 24 |
they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package |
| 25 |
manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the |
| 26 |
tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for |
| 27 |
either keeping them/removing them. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 32 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 33 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 34 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives