| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:05 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>>> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the |
| 5 |
>>> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no good |
| 6 |
>>> argument to support a toolkit version - that is (about to be) deprecated |
| 7 |
>>> - for exotic corner use cases that people tried to come up with in the |
| 8 |
>>> heat of the argument. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> So, my issue is really with the proposition that we need a "good |
| 12 |
>> argument" to support a toolkit version in the first place. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Because: |
| 16 |
> a) the gnome maintainers already said they are not interested in |
| 17 |
> supporting it indefinitely (they are the maintainers of gtk+ as well) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was not suggesting that anybody be forced to maintain gtk2 itself. |
| 20 |
However, I don't see any efforts underway to remove it right now. |
| 21 |
gtk2 isn't actually deprecated in Gentoo. If it were then I'd look at |
| 22 |
things differently. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If the day comes when nobody wants to maintain gtk2 in the tree, then |
| 25 |
it will have to go. If a single developer or proxy wants to maintain |
| 26 |
it and does so, then it can stay. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
And nothing in portage will be supported "indefinitely." |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives