| 1 |
I disagree witho you and hasufell. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
It *IS* users destiny if they get some stabiity issues because of their |
| 4 |
decision to have gtk2-only or gtk3-only system. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yes, they can paste bugs about improper toolkit support. Is it bad? Rules says |
| 7 |
it should be reported upstream. And all the time Gentoo exists that worked |
| 8 |
this way. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The whole point of Gentoo is to give user freedom of the choice. Freedom to |
| 11 |
decide every aspect that is possible to decide about. Freedom to use Gentoo |
| 12 |
exactly as they want, but not as "you don't need feature X, because I'm |
| 13 |
maintainer/QA and said that", like some DebUbuntu maintainers did with git or, |
| 14 |
say, ejabberd, some years ago. Any movements to the easy side of "we will not |
| 15 |
support feature X, despite upstream still support it, because feature Y is |
| 16 |
newer and shiny, and feature X can be less tested" is a big fat violation of |
| 17 |
Gentoo philosophy. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And I totally agree with Rich: it is maintainer decision, if they ready to |
| 20 |
support mutiple build variants or not. And if not — it is absolutelly lawful |
| 21 |
user's right to file a bug against a package, that it has support in upstream, |
| 22 |
but has not in the Gentoo. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they should |
| 25 |
not. We are makers of kinda army swiss knife suite that give user possibility |
| 26 |
and instruments to make everything they want. And any tries to say "you shall |
| 27 |
use SystemD, but not sysV/openrc/upstart/whatever", or "you shall use gtk3 |
| 28 |
only", or "you shall use Qt5 only", and so on — is a CRIME against Gentoo |
| 29 |
philosophy. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
mva |
Archives