On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:28:36 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: > >On 20/02/14 11:23, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >>> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't >>> like the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers will be >>> looking at their one corner of the portage tree, deciding that they >>> are going to handle the choice of gtk version without slotting, and >>> not consider the effect on the distro as a whole. >>> >>> You know what's going to happen now, after the QA team decision? >>> >>> First of all, lots of developers will start renaming "gtk" to >>> "gtk3" in their ebuilds' IUSE. >>> >>> Which means "gtk gtk3" will soon have to be added to USE in >>> targets/desktop/gnome/make.defaults (currently, the gnome profile >>> globally only has USE="gtk" because the "gtk3" flag is evil). >>> >>> And users of non-gnome profiles who use gnome applications will of >>> course manually add "gtk gtk3" to USE in their local make.conf. >>> >>> Unfortunately, at the same time, lots of other developers are going >>> to start adding support for building against gtk2 XOR gtk3. Because >>> of course "Gentoo is about choice", and the more choices, the >>> merrier, and the gtk3 flag has been declared as supported by the QA >>> team. And that means lots of REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( gtk gtk3 )". >>> >>> For the gnome team this results in a headache: maintaining a big >>> list of "-gtk" / "-gtk3" entries in >>> targets/desktop/gnome/package.use so that gnome users get a >>> sensible choice and don't need to edit /etc/portage/* just to >>> emerge widely used desktop tools. >>> >>> But for non-gnome users who manually added USE=gtk3 to make.conf, >>> this means regular emerge conflicts after sync, forcing them to >>> *guess* whether "-gtk" or "-gtk3" in pacakge.use is the better >>> choice. Maybe with portage auto-suggesting the wrong solution just >>> to add to the wonderful user experience :/ >>> >> See, now this is an example of a good email as to why supporting both >> can be a hassle for more than just one desktop. Instead of telling >> me that I'm dumb for thinking it's a good idea to follow upstream's >> supported ideas, and that we should force one or the other. >> >> The KDE team seems to be able to deal with it just fine, but somehow >> it's impossible and hard for the GNOME team. Why is that? What does >> KDE do differently that makes it feasible? >> >> > >No, they didn't manage it, at all, which why we don't see Qt3/KDE3 in >tree anymore. >
Very bad excuse... They punted kde3 because they didn't have the manpower to stem both KDEs... -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
