| 1 |
On 9/9/15 5:48 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> There was a tracker on bugzilla about it at some point, but people |
| 3 |
> didn't care enough, so I stopped filing bugs. Neither the gnome team |
| 4 |
> nor QA had a strong enough opinion to enforce consistency here over |
| 5 |
> the whole tree. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Looks like that was <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420493> . |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not sure whether the underlying issue was enforcement, or just |
| 10 |
handling various use cases. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Similar situation with qt/qt4/qt5 seems to confirm to me that it's not |
| 13 |
whims that make people not follow the policy, but real needs and use cases. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Quotes from above bug: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> You really have not addressed all the situations here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Yes I know there may be situations where the proposed solutions are |
| 20 |
> not sufficient. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Also, most blocking bugs seem to be resolved as WONTFIX/WORKSFORME/INVALID. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
FWIW I do care. For now responses on this thread seem to recommend (or |
| 25 |
be at least OK with) adding gtk3 USE flag to www-client/chromium . If |
| 26 |
there's an alternative solution endorsed by GNOME or QA team that would |
| 27 |
make progress on <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559378> |
| 28 |
possible, I'd just switch to that solution. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paweł |
Archives