1 |
On 13:24 Tue 29 Mar , Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 29 March 2005 13:11, Stefan Sperling wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: |
4 |
> > > -gtk +gtk2 is a no-op. |
5 |
> > why? |
6 |
> As Brian said, gtk2 depends on gtk. |
7 |
> Just as a practical example, take ethereal, which could be built without gui |
8 |
> support, just using tethereal. |
9 |
> If you build it with -gtk +gtk2, it will build tethereal, not ethereal. I |
10 |
> submitted some time ago a patch to make this a more logical behaviour, but I |
11 |
> needed to change it to suit the same behaviour of other packages. See bug |
12 |
> #81055. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Take also amule which you can find on bugzilla as an example, which can be |
15 |
> built without gtk support, and on which gtk2 support depends on gtk. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Or wxGTK in which +wxnogtk flag is used to disable gtk1 support (there's gtk2 |
18 |
> flag but no gtk flag). |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I still think this is illogical, but I can't do much on this. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
What if I want things to be built without gtk where ever possible, but I |
24 |
want things that have to use either gtk1 or gtk2 to use gtk2? |
25 |
|
26 |
Under the current method this is what -gtk gtk2 should do, since |
27 |
something that has to use gtk won't have a gtk flag, but if there's a |
28 |
choice between gtk1 and gtk2, it should have a gtk2 flag. |
29 |
|
30 |
I don't see how this would be possible under ferringb's scheme, so I |
31 |
prefer the current way (though if ferringb's way of doing it could be |
32 |
modified to do this without getting too ugly I'd be just as happy with |
33 |
that). |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
djm |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |