| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 05/27/2016 09:21 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hello, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Despite it being 2016 and gtk2 pretty much dead, buried and forgotten |
| 8 |
> upstream, many applications still support only gtk2, have subtle issues |
| 9 |
> with their gtk3 port, or support both, with some of our userbase |
| 10 |
> clinging to gtk2 for dubious political or aesthetical reasons. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> For the latter cases, despite GNOME teams policy and strong preference |
| 13 |
> on not providing a choice and just choosing gtk2 or gtk3 (gtk3 if it's |
| 14 |
> working as good as gtk2), some cases exist where the maintainers want |
| 15 |
> to provide such choice. In some cases it is understandable for a short |
| 16 |
> while during transition, e.g firefox. In other cases, it is purely for |
| 17 |
> the sake of providing the choice of working with a deprecated toolkit, |
| 18 |
> apparently. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> My highly biased essay aside, we need to finally globally agree on what |
| 21 |
> we do in this situation. If we allow this choice at all, only for |
| 22 |
> special cases, or widespread. And if this choice is provided, how do we |
| 23 |
> name the USE flag. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Historically, for very good reasons in past and present GNOME team |
| 26 |
> members opinion, USE=gtk has always meant to mean to provide support |
| 27 |
> for gtk in general, not any particular version. This is opposite to |
| 28 |
> what the Qt team has been doing. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
What are those good reasons? Every discussion I've seen about this has |
| 31 |
Gnome team saying "There are good reasons" without actually _listing_ |
| 32 |
them. It sounds like the 'good reason' is that people will get some sort |
| 33 |
of gtk support no matter what the application supports, but as had been |
| 34 |
said already, that isn't exactly a good thing. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
AFAICT, this only serves to cause more confusion. A user setting USE=gtk |
| 37 |
may expect gtk2 (because that's what it provided in the past), then all |
| 38 |
of a sudden has their system pulled out from underneath them to get gtk3. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Ignoring that past issue, there's no discussion here of how the |
| 41 |
transition to gtk4 would be handled in a situation where gtk=gtk-any, |
| 42 |
but not all applications support gtk4. What will you do then, introduce |
| 43 |
a force-gtk3 USE flag to work around the problem in the future? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
No one is saying cleaning up the mess will be easy, but it is needed to |
| 46 |
prevent user confusion and prevent further problems down the road. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I have no political feelings towards gtk2/3, for the record :). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
- -Austin |
| 51 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 52 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXSHKKAAoJEACzKVe5S/Ph3hcQAKpAHkn3SRrfG4ZiU7Hd2qj8 |
| 55 |
yOE2lvWAzPUN922uZbhzf1un1GG+xlQ5mgtPoWI/d6LQEjzOIL94gD1GjsEzLn8+ |
| 56 |
pGjD+dZfyzz1QdyQ6YOm6mbvVrQpNY8m8eZ++Evf7q/zdsYbvmyEu+dnIrcCz6SO |
| 57 |
EkCLwKt5BlyyGUiMcgNRoy+SmBbk31YV9VeIkmhv0FC05O1gPZMzaDhCMwPYW8JK |
| 58 |
7IBeMn1C2oTno9Pd6C360+xjPsIdtVvUJ9dfebLu1DfOPD+qBzfY69jtMsOFyOIM |
| 59 |
xf7L/o/Lmr0JvFqmtX0G3OooglxiMC8yzj7xhuNADDERh1mjVWo0ktfPKOCVRFU9 |
| 60 |
LqeJr4uZneuezXbP1LVb44vGWyiMSCZYuM7sXfVSn1dbtBvgb932A7sud1NSTVmQ |
| 61 |
TMyLUAGVNXlOXNbMcFPnXBcMLzy/fTNYDclpc8cwHD5Pyq8WR0MybS141jD7Z55F |
| 62 |
J1RRSPETKyq8WxSwCNjDYgguJmY0HrFFlfa7P45EHzhKktcPacCE3bOg5joNPsTM |
| 63 |
aMREjMtb4zG0tWRdJ4JaSGFCHcrK709I/ED0v1qr378Rgu8+OJxU+f/IWFh7NRZY |
| 64 |
auefisbLU9LRcMQUbn07t2GQTREFjgahM/8a2WhcQgV7qIc01ih6I2o7jQgO6SfN |
| 65 |
ob/dqOl8/yVzbfAVA14m |
| 66 |
=dD1I |
| 67 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives