Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolution - GTK Useflag Situation

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Robin H. Johnson

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 4:50:09 PM9/18/05
to
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +0000, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> * use flags were designed to enable/disable optional features, not to
> allow/deny installation of specific packages ( such as gtk-1)
> * gtk2 was never supposed to mean "i want to use gtk-2 only" - as the
> description says in use.desc, "Use gtk+-2.0.0 over gtk+-1.2 in cases where
> a program supports both."
Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people
who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not
against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces,
primarily as they are a lot more lighter on memory and disk.

I use USE='gtk -gtk2', and putting gtk2 in my local package.mask is not
acceptable, because I do use applications with interfaces in gtk2 only
sometimes.

If your system has a way that I can get what I want, then that's fine,
but it just doesn't seem to be included in your email.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : rob...@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Albert Hopkins

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:20:08 PM9/18/05
to
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 13:43 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]

> Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people
> who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not
> against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces,
> primarily as they are a lot more lighter on memory and disk.
>
> I use USE='gtk -gtk2', and putting gtk2 in my local package.mask is not
> acceptable, because I do use applications with interfaces in gtk2 only
> sometimes.
>
> If your system has a way that I can get what I want, then that's fine,
> but it just doesn't seem to be included in your email.
>

I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both sides:

We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. This distro will
include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86, devfs,
a.out binaries, DES passwords, etc. It will be just as good as Gentoo, but catered to
old-timers and and those who prefer to reminisce about the good ol' days.

-m

--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Patrick Lauer

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:40:10 PM9/18/05
to
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 17:10 -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both sides:
>
> We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne.
That has been done, it has become sentient and applied for developer
status.
You can reach it at Gen...@gentoo.org ;-)

> This distro will
> include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86, devfs,
> a.out binaries, DES passwords, etc. It will be just as good as Gentoo, but catered to
> old-timers and and those who prefer to reminisce about the good ol' days.

So ... it'll be like Red Hat, only without the Hat? ;-)


Patrick
--
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

signature.asc

Joshua Jackson

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:40:12 PM9/18/05
to
A few more that I didn't see in the list

media-libs/imlib : gtk1 only
media-libs/smpeg : gtk1 only
media-sound/lame : gtk1 only
media-video/mplayer: gtk1 it would appear?

--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Chris White

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:00:10 PM9/18/05
to
Robin,

> Your decision to remove the gtk2 use flag takes away control from people
> who were using it correctly (by what the description said). I'm not
> against having gtk2 on my systems, but I prefer gtk1 interfaces,
> primarily as they are a lot more lighter on memory and disk.

I think the problem here isn't about choice, but support. Mainly deprication
is the issue here. GTK2 was meant to be an upgrade of GTK1 interfaces. At
some point upstream is going to have to giveup and say "Sorry sam, use gtk2
or we can't support you" (Who knows, maybe that's already happened). On top
of that, gtk2 will evolve with the libraries it utilizes (X for example). I
think that's the main point it comes across. It may look nice, but it also
may not work after awhile.

Marduk,

>I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both sides:
>

>We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. This distro will

>include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86, devfs,
>a.out binaries, DES passwords, etc. It will be just as good as Gentoo, but
>catered to
>old-timers and and those who prefer to reminisce about the good ol' days.

This is what we call flaming, please don't waste time with this. It's
annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer than they need, and does
nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks.

Chris White

Thomas de Grenier de Latour

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:20:07 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:28:16 +0000 (UTC)
Joshua Jackson <tsu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few more that I didn't see in the list
>
> media-libs/imlib : gtk1 only
> media-libs/smpeg : gtk1 only
> media-sound/lame : gtk1 only
> media-video/mplayer: gtk1 it would appear?
>

I think it's on purpose that this ones are not listed, because they
are not concerned by the changes John was talking about. They only
IUSE "gtk", and the flag which will be deprecated is "gtk2", so they
have no reason to be modified.

--
TGL.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Albert Hopkins

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:30:08 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:24 +0900, Chris White wrote:
[..]

> Marduk,
>
> >I have a different solution that should, no doubt, satisfy both
> sides:
> >
> >We fork Gentoo. Create a new distro, called GenOne. This distro
> will
> >include only older wares such as GTK1, Kernel 2.4, libc5, XFree86,
> devfs,
> >a.out binaries, DES passwords, etc. It will be just as good as
> Gentoo, but
> >catered to
> >old-timers and and those who prefer to reminisce about the good ol'
> days.
>
> This is what we call flaming, please don't waste time with this.
> It's
> annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer than they need, and
> does
> nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks.

Flaming? I wasn't flaming. There's nothing I said that was the least
bit insulting or controversial. All that I was doing, for the benefit
of the list, is to introduce a little humor with the intent of perhaps
getting a chuckle here or there. Ha ha. Some people got it. You
didn't.

Ciaran McCreesh

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 12:00:07 AM9/19/05
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:28:07 -0500 Albert Hopkins <mar...@gentoo.org>
wrote:

| Flaming? I wasn't flaming. There's nothing I said that was the least
| bit insulting or controversial. All that I was doing, for the benefit
| of the list, is to introduce a little humor with the intent of perhaps
| getting a chuckle here or there. Ha ha. Some people got it. You
| didn't.

ChrisWhite has promised to reply to everyone who goes even slightly
offtopic or posts anything funny asking them not to. It's supposedly an
alternative to summaries.

:0
* From:.*chris...@gentoo.org
/dev/null

hth,
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Stephen P. Becker

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 12:20:06 AM9/19/05
to
> This is what we call flaming, please don't waste time with this. It's
> annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer than they need, and does
> nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks.

This is what we call inserting a stick up one's ass, please don't waste

time with this. It's annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer
than they need, and does nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks.

-Steve
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Peter Volkov Alexandrovich

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 5:00:37 AM9/19/05
to
Hello.

On Пнд, 2005-09-19 at 20:24 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> I think the problem here isn't about choice, but support. Mainly deprication
> is the issue here. GTK2 was meant to be an upgrade of GTK1 interfaces. At
> some point upstream is going to have to giveup and say "Sorry sam, use gtk2
> or we can't support you" (Who knows, maybe that's already happened).

This already happened.

I was forced to move from gtk+-1 when one day after xorg update all
russian letters in program's interface became unreadable. I've searched
mailing lists, forums but no solution there. Then I posted bug upstream
[1]. The answer was that gtk+-1 is unsupported...

Thus. The idea to keep linux small is very attractive, but gtk+-1
library is not the variant until somebody continues to support it.

Links:
[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169178

Peter.

signature.asc

Brian Harring

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 8:30:17 AM9/19/05
to
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +0000, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> * "but you are taking away choice!" - If a program has both GTK2 and GTK3
> interfaces, there are many ways to allow for testing of the experimental
> interface. For instance, package.mask with a revision number.

package.mask isn't a perfect fit from where I sit; if it's already merged
(say for development), but the developer has masked gtk-3, all pkgs
that prefer gtk-3 will continue linking against it till gtk-3 is
unmerged regardless of the masking.

Part of the reason I prefer use flags here; aside from that, use flags
aren't features, strictly conditionals (intentionally vague) :)

> * use the proper, built in methods for this: add "=x11-libs/gtk+-1*" to
> /etc/portage/package.mask.

If merged, need to unmerge it to block any further linking to it if
using || () deps.

Issues above aren't blockers at all, just pointing it out since it
does have a minor downside, one that should be mentioned in any
documentation that tells people how to migrate from gtk(N-1) to gtkN.
There are some downsides that should probably be made clear.
~harring

Mike Gardiner

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 9:00:31 AM9/19/05
to
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 07:28 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +0000, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> > * "but you are taking away choice!" - If a program has both GTK2 and GTK3
> > interfaces, there are many ways to allow for testing of the experimental
> > interface. For instance, package.mask with a revision number.
>
> package.mask isn't a perfect fit from where I sit; if it's already merged
> (say for development), but the developer has masked gtk-3, all pkgs
> that prefer gtk-3 will continue linking against it till gtk-3 is
> unmerged regardless of the masking.
>

For an example to illustrate what John meant by using package.mask,
assuming gtk-3 is masked, and we have an appfoo with a default gtk-2
interface and an experimental gtk-3 interface.

The un-package.masked ebuilds will always build against gtk-2, as that'd
be the designated interface by the developer. By always build against, I
mean gtk-2 would be the default interface - so it'd specify
--enable-gtk2/--disable-gtk3 or explicitly not use automagic to detect
gtk-3 and always use gtk-2.

We could have a package.mask'ed appfoo-rX ebuild that builds with the
gtk-3 interface as it becomes more mature.

This is sort of an extension of "developer knows best" when choosing
which gtk+ interface to make the default.

Mike Gardiner
(Obz)


--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Thomas de Grenier de Latour

unread,
Sep 19, 2005, 1:30:27 PM9/19/05
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
"John N. Laliberte" <alla...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> How to keep gtk1 off of your system:


> * use the proper, built in methods for this: add
> "=x11-libs/gtk+-1*" to /etc/portage/package.mask.

Since this may not be that easy for the end-user (lots of ebuilds
to avoid or to package.use), i've put an attempt of more detailed
instructions here: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Get_rid_of_GTK_1.x
I would not be against a second look at it if someone has time to
read it, just to check it makes sense.

Thanks,

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages