1 |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:49:00PM +0200, Spider wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 12:15 +0200, Fabian Zeindl wrote: |
3 |
> > Hello |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > There was a discussion on the gentoo-user-de list about this two |
6 |
> > Useflags: gtk and gtk2. Because not everybody is sure what the mean, so |
7 |
> > if you have -gtk +gtk2 some think that gtk2 should be installed and soon. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Wouldn't it be better if "gtk" meaned that the newest available gtk |
10 |
> > version ist installed (gtk1 or gtk2) and a flag like oldgtk take the |
11 |
> > older version gtk1. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Another question which occured: Is there a performancedrawback if a |
14 |
> > program is compile with gtk1 AND gtk2 build in? Does this happen when |
15 |
> > someone installs with +gtk +gtk2? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Common misconception, it tends to crop up once every 6 months or so |
19 |
> since I ever was foolish enough not to stomp a hard policy and beat the |
20 |
> people who want gtk+-1.2 support with a sledgehammer. |
21 |
while I'm certainly not advocating that the user is always |
22 |
right... user requirements/desires for the tree should be reflected, |
23 |
not have mandates handed down. (realize you didn't quite mean it that |
24 |
way, but it plays into my point so I took a shot at it :) |
25 |
|
26 |
> If someone can suggest a better formulation for this, please go ahead. |
27 |
Start the process of adjusting ebuilds so that the use flags reflect |
28 |
what everybody thinks they should. |
29 |
|
30 |
I've seen countless users (despite use.desc) flip on *just* gtk2, |
31 |
because they want *just* gtk v2 support linked in if available. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Lets face it, gtk+-1.2 is _deprecated_ and all packages that use it |
34 |
> should either be taken out and shot in the head, ( for mercy's sake, |
35 |
> that and utf8 ) or updated to track the new and maintained library |
36 |
> API. |
37 |
> We all know this isn't feasible, most projects are just recently wiping |
38 |
> stale code for interfaces ( Hi mozilla! ) and as such, the mistake is |
39 |
> left to stay. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> -Changing- existing logic is -not- going to solve this solution |
42 |
> cleanly. We suggested to remove the gtk2 flag, (make it default) and |
43 |
> implement : |
44 |
> USE="shoot-me-in-the-head-with-deprecated-libraries-please" instead, |
45 |
> however people considered it as offending our users for some reason. |
46 |
How is this any different (aside from naming) gtk1 vs gtk2? |
47 |
|
48 |
Only actual difference I see is sticking 'deprecated' or something equivalent |
49 |
into the use flag name, and mandating the default gtk+- version that |
50 |
is used, rather then just exposing the options via use flags, and |
51 |
letting users decide for themselves. |
52 |
|
53 |
Aside from that, as I stated in another email, such an approach is |
54 |
going to bite you in the ass on the next major gtk release, |
55 |
wash rinse repeat (lesson learned being?) |
56 |
~brian |