| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 22:29 -0400, Eric Brown wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'll be as terse as possible with this: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> gtk+-2.4.1 has an added dependency (gnome-icon-theme) that is not apparently |
| 5 |
> a dependency for gtk+ (according to the INSTALL file in the gtk tarball). |
| 6 |
> Like many others, I like to keep my system clean, so I don't necessarily |
| 7 |
> think I should be forced to install that dependency when I update GTK. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As said in the bugs concerning this, we try to have a usable default |
| 10 |
setup. The filechooser as it is, is not usable without icons. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I have already suggested that we add a local use flag for this feature, but |
| 13 |
> I have met with stern opposition from khai. Since adding the use flag for |
| 14 |
> this is such a small modification, and because this isn't the first time |
| 15 |
> I've seen unwanted packages added as strict dependencies, I would like to |
| 16 |
> propose that someone help us fix this problem. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Don't blame the messenger. I was the one who added these deps, khai only |
| 19 |
did the sane thing by invalidating the bug for the simple fact that it |
| 20 |
is not a bug. It's not an optional gnome dep (gnome comes by default |
| 21 |
with it), it's a gtk dep. That rules out the USE flag. The difference |
| 22 |
gtk/gnome is diminishing, so just see it as one more step towards |
| 23 |
integration. |
| 24 |
Anyway, the main problem with the bug was that the way in which it was |
| 25 |
written lacked a certain maturity, that doesn't help making your point. |
| 26 |
I must say khai handled that pretty well, I can tell you that I would've |
| 27 |
probably been a whole lot less polite. |
| 28 |
I propose you look at the real issue here and why this dep got added and |
| 29 |
then if you still think you have point you could try the ombudsman to |
| 30 |
mediate (plasmaroo?). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> I know ebuilds are not perfect, but I think if we have the chance to give |
| 33 |
> users added flexibility here, we should. To me, the argument that this is |
| 34 |
> not "bloat" because it doesn't take up much space is not relevant because |
| 35 |
> space isn't the real issue; it's choice. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It's no choice. We don't give a choice for 'non-working/non-usable' |
| 38 |
systems : USE="idontwantthistowork". We create ebuilds that should work |
| 39 |
by default in all situations. I can only say that this is the case now, |
| 40 |
before that the ebuild lacked. |
| 41 |
It amuses me that people only seem to complain about the dep which |
| 42 |
contains 'gnome' in it's name. The changes imply more deps that are more |
| 43 |
intrusive, but nobody has even mentioned them. But I wasn't expecting |
| 44 |
anything else when adding it, to me it proves the shallowness of this |
| 45 |
whole argument. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Are there any proposals on how to approach this problem? I think it may |
| 48 |
> even be a whole class of problems that need to be considered. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Well actually in one of the bugs I gave a possible alternate approach on |
| 51 |
how to get rid of these deps, maybe you could try to be more |
| 52 |
constructive and solve this problem in a way that is satisfying to all |
| 53 |
parties involved. |
| 54 |
We have good reasons to add these deps, you have none and are obviously |
| 55 |
offended by the fact that you have a gnome package now. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
- foser |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
PS. related bugs |
| 60 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 |
| 61 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50498 |
Archives