| 1 |
On 09/10/2015 02:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:13 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 09/10/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> Suppose you want to run on a non-embedded system with limited RAM and the |
| 6 |
>>> ability to choose means you can use one of the two libraries |
| 7 |
>>> exclusively, thus eliminating the need to load the other library? |
| 8 |
>>> Being able to control what libraries are in use is a key feature of |
| 9 |
>>> Gentoo, IMO. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Any reference that gtk3 has a higher memory footprint? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> gtk2+gtk3 in RAM at the same time has a higher memory footprint than |
| 16 |
> either one alone. If any package uses one or the other, it will end |
| 17 |
> up being loaded into RAM, so there is potentially value in using one |
| 18 |
> of them exclusively. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So you are saying for the unlikely case that someone runs gentoo on a |
| 22 |
desktop system where he cannot even compile gcc, llvm and others without |
| 23 |
waiting for 2 weeks or setting up his on binhost, we have to provide a |
| 24 |
backup-path for him, so that gtk3 is not loaded into his RAM? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Do you know what that means if you want to _actually_ (not just |
| 27 |
theoretically) support that? You have to do that consistently, not just |
| 28 |
for a few packages. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So this makes no sense, since it's already an unsupported corner case. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> I'm not suggesting that package maintainers should be forced to |
| 33 |
> support both whenever possible. I just don't think they should be |
| 34 |
> discouraged from doing so. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Yes, they should be discouraged. It's a QA matter. |
Archives