| 1 |
On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the |
| 4 |
>> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no good |
| 5 |
>> argument to support a toolkit version - that is (about to be) deprecated |
| 6 |
>> - for exotic corner use cases that people tried to come up with in the |
| 7 |
>> heat of the argument. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So, my issue is really with the proposition that we need a "good |
| 11 |
> argument" to support a toolkit version in the first place. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Because: |
| 15 |
a) the gnome maintainers already said they are not interested in |
| 16 |
supporting it indefinitely (they are the maintainers of gtk+ as well) |
| 17 |
c) it introduces maintenance and configuration complexity where it is |
| 18 |
absolutely unnecessary (because no one could come up with a real use |
| 19 |
case) und breaks consistency |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We _should_ need good arguments before we break consistency and |
| 22 |
introduce another layer of configuration complexity, REQUIRED_USE flags |
| 23 |
and other nastiness like package.stable.use.mask and whatnot (mgorny |
| 24 |
already outlined a few other problems too). |
Archives