Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:34:35
Message-Id: 1340458427.18379.19.camel@kanae
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits by Ciaran McCreesh
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200 > Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote: > > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, > > > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then > > > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features. > > > > Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not > > acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike > > the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild > > packaging. > > No-one is saying "don't ship webkit". What is being asked is that a) you > ship webkit with a subset of functionality disabled if necessary for > now, and b) that you provide a general description of what you can't > provide cleanly using existing functionality.
Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and gtk3 support. This is needed because gentoo has gtk2 based desktop/apps and because we want to ship gnome3 for example. Cool thing is that webkit supports being built with each toolkit without conflicting with the build from the other toolkit hence we ended up using SLOTS. Then the problem is that you cannot have two ebuilds of the same version in two different slots. We then had a couple of solutions, most notable being: * using -r${SLOT}${PATCHLEVEL} suffix, being a strictly increasing number that is not expected to go over 300 which is the start of the sequence for the other slot. * using a new package name, duplicating ebuilds
> If you really think it's necessary to come up with a workaround like > this, though, then you should be mailing the list and asking for QA or > Council approval, rather than doing it and then asking for forgiveness > later.
As far as I remember the subject was discussed (at least) once on this mailing list before the problem even occurred for gtk2/gtk3 handling and everyone was ok with it. Shall we add that subject to next council meeting or do we just wait for QA's opinion here ? -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> Gentoo


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk3 useflag and support of older toolkits Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>