1 |
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:02, Jakub Moc wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier CrĂȘte wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> >>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote: |
6 |
> >>>> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will |
7 |
> >>>> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die. |
8 |
> >>> |
9 |
> >>> too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize |
10 |
> >>> gtk/gtk2 |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> Is there a legitimate reason to use gtk1 if the gtk2 support is useable? |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Oh please... no flames :/ |
17 |
|
18 |
it isnt a flame, hence the "nothing personal" |
19 |
|
20 |
expecting Olivier to know every single gtk1/gtk2 package inside and out is |
21 |
asinine |
22 |
|
23 |
> if a package |
24 |
> > provides the interfaces and users like to use them, where's the bug ? |
25 |
> > ive seen peeps from time to time who bring the hate on gtk2 because of |
26 |
> > its fattiness compared to gtk1 ... they like to build packages that still |
27 |
> > can be against gtk1 |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Except that you won't get any support whatsoever for gtk-1 upstream, and |
30 |
> except that it's been agreed upon quite some time ago that gtk vs. gtk2 |
31 |
> use flags is a bad way to select between gtk-1/gtk-2/no gtk at all and |
32 |
> confuses users, except that... oh well, been discussed so many times, |
33 |
> not going to beat a dead horse. |
34 |
|
35 |
and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the "lets remove |
36 |
packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one |
37 |
|
38 |
> Please, remove the gtk2 flag from ebuilds you maintain. Thanks. |
39 |
|
40 |
no |
41 |
-mike |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |