| 1 |
On Thursday 07 July 2011 13:42:24 Michael Orlitzky did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> > Holy shit, that attitude from Samuli sucks big balls big time. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > He's always come across to me as an OK dev, never seen him pull |
| 7 |
> > THAT stunt before. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> For what it's worth, I was expecting much worse. In his defense, the |
| 10 |
> commenters list a bunch of bugs in other packages as the reason why |
| 11 |
> they want to retain gtk2 support in the gnome-mplayer ebuild. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Per comment 21, the Gnome team suggests that packages use the latest |
| 14 |
> version of gtk that works. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, that's "suggests" they use "that latest that works", not |
| 17 |
"demands", "insists", "mandates" or "requires", and not "only the |
| 18 |
latest version that works". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The gnome-mplayer package is supported on the alpha, amd64, ppc, |
| 21 |
> ppc64, x86, and x86-fbsd arches. Adding a gtk2 USE flag means that |
| 22 |
> the testing load would be doubled; that the maintainer would have |
| 23 |
> to recompile the package six times on six different machines to |
| 24 |
> make sure that it runs with gtk2. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Then, to go stable (in addition to now being tied to the stable |
| 27 |
> gtk2), the arch testers would have to re-test on all six of those |
| 28 |
> arches. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> So, the additional burden isn't so small as it's made out to be in |
| 31 |
> the comments. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And what about gnome? Does that not impose a fantastic testing burden, |
| 34 |
alongside which gnome-mplayer is small in comparison? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
How about the devs relook at this and do it sanely. When the major |
| 37 |
consumer of gtk+ (gnome itself) has a stable gtk+-3 very in stable, |
| 38 |
then other packages follow suit, not before. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives