| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2015-09-10, o godz. 08:46:41 |
| 3 |
> Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@××××××××××××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > If upstream gives the option of gtk2 or gtk3, why shouldn't the ebuild? |
| 6 |
> > From the "I want a usable system with as little code as possible" and "I |
| 7 |
> > want a system tailored to my needs" standpoints, having only one version |
| 8 |
> > of gtk makes quite a bit of sense. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This is the same case as with many other libraries which suffered major |
| 11 |
> API changes -- SDL, for example. Just because upstream *thinks* they |
| 12 |
> support two GTK+ versions, doesn't mean they do. Only one of the |
| 13 |
> versions is well-tested, and the second one sometimes isn't tested at |
| 14 |
> all, neither by upstream nor by the developer. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm sorry, I wrote too briefly. hasufell seems to be saying that gtk2 |
| 17 |
should be deprecated now. I'm just agreeing with Rich that if upstream |
| 18 |
supports both *and* the maintainer wants to support both, there's no |
| 19 |
reason to force them to only support one. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The happy end result is, sometimes user has choice between 'working |
| 22 |
> package' and 'package randomly segfaulting when you least expect it'. |
| 23 |
> Of course, it's all hidden nicely under USE=gtk2 and USE=gtk3, so just |
| 24 |
> *maybe* if you have the time to read local flag descriptions for every |
| 25 |
> single package you may notice which of the flags should be enabled to |
| 26 |
> get a working app. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> But yes, wasting people's time and offering easy way to data loss is |
| 29 |
> better than not supporting some imaginary corner case when you can |
| 30 |
> actually use some fancy combination of applications that can actually |
| 31 |
> run without that one library without losing stability and benefit you. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I hope you are ready to pay the developers who will waste their time |
| 34 |
> figuring out what goes wrong when you report a bug, until they figure |
| 35 |
> out it's because you have forced GTK+ version which upstream thought |
| 36 |
> they're supporting but they do not. That's certainly a better |
| 37 |
> alternative than paying for hardware that can handle loading two |
| 38 |
> libraries. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
As Rich has mentioned already, if upstream thinks they support gtk2 but |
| 41 |
it crashes when using gtk2, I am perfectly fine with the maintainer |
| 42 |
closing the bug as WONTFIX because upstream broke things. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Alec |
Archives