[gentoo-dev] gtk2 use flag must die

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Jakub Moc

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 12:10:06 PM4/2/06
to
This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.

For affected ebuilds, please see the attached list and Bug 106560.

Thanks.

--

jakub

signature.asc
gtk2list.txt

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 1:10:23 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.

too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize gtk/gtk2

i for one wont be "fixing" these packages anytime soon
-mike
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Olivier Crête

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 2:30:19 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
>
> too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize gtk/gtk2

Is there a legitimate reason to use gtk1 if the gtk2 support is useable?
Either way, there shouldnt be a gtk2 flag..

--
Olivier Crête
tes...@gentoo.org

signature.asc

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 2:50:17 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Cręte wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
> >
> > too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize
> > gtk/gtk2
>
> Is there a legitimate reason to use gtk1 if the gtk2 support is useable?

nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ? if a package
provides the interfaces and users like to use them, where's the bug ? ive
seen peeps from time to time who bring the hate on gtk2 because of its
fattiness compared to gtk1 ... they like to build packages that still can be
against gtk1

Jakub Moc

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 3:10:44 PM4/2/06
to
Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>>> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
>>>> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
>>> too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize
>>> gtk/gtk2
>> Is there a legitimate reason to use gtk1 if the gtk2 support is useable?
>
> nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?

Oh please... no flames :/

if a package
> provides the interfaces and users like to use them, where's the bug ? ive
> seen peeps from time to time who bring the hate on gtk2 because of its
> fattiness compared to gtk1 ... they like to build packages that still can be
> against gtk1
> -mike
>

Except that you won't get any support whatsoever for gtk-1 upstream, and
except that it's been agreed upon quite some time ago that gtk vs. gtk2
use flags is a bad way to select between gtk-1/gtk-2/no gtk at all and
confuses users, except that... oh well, been discussed so many times,
not going to beat a dead horse.

Please, remove the gtk2 flag from ebuilds you maintain. Thanks.

--

jakub

signature.asc

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 3:20:06 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?

It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so
blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to)
support. Wouldn't it have been time for you to speak up, when the Gnome herd
announced to deprecate Gtk1 support for applications that build again Gtk2!?
Instead playing the road block for the very few people who may still favor
Gtk1, it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting Gtk1
upstream with regards to security issues etc.. I for one favor it to
eliminate toolkits that are superseeded by their successor as fast as
possible.


Carsten

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 3:20:21 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Cręte wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>>> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> >>>> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
> >>>
> >>> too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize
> >>> gtk/gtk2
> >>
> >> Is there a legitimate reason to use gtk1 if the gtk2 support is useable?
> >
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> Oh please... no flames :/

it isnt a flame, hence the "nothing personal"

expecting Olivier to know every single gtk1/gtk2 package inside and out is
asinine

> if a package
> > provides the interfaces and users like to use them, where's the bug ?
> > ive seen peeps from time to time who bring the hate on gtk2 because of
> > its fattiness compared to gtk1 ... they like to build packages that still
> > can be against gtk1
>

> Except that you won't get any support whatsoever for gtk-1 upstream, and
> except that it's been agreed upon quite some time ago that gtk vs. gtk2
> use flags is a bad way to select between gtk-1/gtk-2/no gtk at all and
> confuses users, except that... oh well, been discussed so many times,
> not going to beat a dead horse.

and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the "lets remove
packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one

> Please, remove the gtk2 flag from ebuilds you maintain. Thanks.

no

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 3:30:12 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd)

i didnt blame Olivier for anything ... doesnt anyone get the "nothing
personal" part ?

> but what we (can and want to) support.

i dont recall asking you to support my packages

> Wouldn't it have been time for you to speak up, when the Gnome
> herd announced to deprecate Gtk1 support for applications that build again
> Gtk2!? Instead playing the road block for the very few people who may still
> favor Gtk1,

last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was
The Man, so i guess people forgot about that

> it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..

and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simply drop the optional
support. such a situation has not arose, so using such hypothetical examples
is meaningless.

Jakub Moc

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 3:40:32 PM4/2/06
to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
"lets remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one

No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, and search
bugzilla for all those bugs about portage pulling in gtk2 when users had
USE="-gtk2" set, or for all bugs about the confusion what USE="gtk
-gtk2" or USE="-gtk gtk2" actually means...

>> Please, remove the gtk2 flag from ebuilds you maintain. Thanks.
>
> no
> -mike

Shrug... Maybe speak up sooner next time, this debate has been over for
a long time and the decision was clearly to deprecate gtk2 use flag. Not
going to do that? Shrug, oh well, perhaps QA will then, or not - I
don't care if you are going to confuse users. That bug is set as a
blocker for Gnome 2.14 release.

My email was intended to speed up closing that bug, not to start such
debate again. So - that's all from me.

--

jakub

signature.asc

Harald van Dijk

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:00:20 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:12:28PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so
> blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to)
> support. Wouldn't it have been time for you to speak up, when the Gnome herd
> announced to deprecate Gtk1 support for applications that build again Gtk2!?

Others did speak up at that time. The result:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:10:33 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Others did speak up at that time. The result:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641

Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.


Carsten

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:10:32 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> > "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
> > benefits no one
>
> No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, and search
> bugzilla for all those bugs about portage pulling in gtk2 when users had
> USE="-gtk2" set, or for all bugs about the confusion what USE="gtk
> -gtk2" or USE="-gtk gtk2" actually means...

unrelated

i'm talking about buts in the packages themselves, not end user confusion

Harald van Dijk

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:20:37 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van D??k wrote:
> > Others did speak up at that time. The result:
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
>
> Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.

On gentoo-dev. I'd try to show more if I had IRC logs that far back.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:20:39 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider
> was The Man, so i guess people forgot about that

No, see the whole thread Harald references in his email.

> > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..
>
> and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simply drop the
> optional support. such a situation has not arose, so using such
> hypothetical examples is meaningless.

The problem is that no one is working on the code, so the chances for black
hats to find something they can abuse for a long time are to consider. The
situation is always given. It's just the question, when and if the good guys
get to know about it.


Carsten

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 4:50:13 PM4/2/06
to

lets apply the same logic to all things unmaintained !

besides, you're talking about removing GTK1 completely ... this thread is
talking about deprecating the gtk2 USE flag

the GTK1 lib is hopefully going to live on much much longer than the gtk2 USE
flag

Jakub Moc

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 5:30:13 PM4/2/06
to

Not really, since the retarded handling of those use flags combos in
ebuilds has been one of the key reasons to deprecate this. Also, this is
rather funny why xml2 use flags needs to be removed (it was you who
suggested that) - yet you resist to get rid of gtk2 use flag, which is
*way* more confusing (heck, look at that old wxGTK stuff, it's nasty and
confusing like hell).

I'd like to note that all bugs complaining about gtk2 getting pulled in
with USE="-gtk2" as being marked as dupe of that deprecation bug, not
really sure how are you going to explain to the users that there are
exceptions to this rule.


--

jakub

signature.asc

Mart Raudsepp

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 5:50:04 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 23:20 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> >>> "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
> >>> benefits no one
> >> No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, and search
> >> bugzilla for all those bugs about portage pulling in gtk2 when users had
> >> USE="-gtk2" set, or for all bugs about the confusion what USE="gtk
> >> -gtk2" or USE="-gtk gtk2" actually means...
> >
> > unrelated
> >
> > i'm talking about buts in the packages themselves, not end user confusion
> > -mike
>
> Not really, since the retarded handling of those use flags combos in
> ebuilds has been one of the key reasons to deprecate this. Also, this is
> rather funny why xml2 use flags needs to be removed (it was you who
> suggested that) - yet you resist to get rid of gtk2 use flag, which is
> *way* more confusing (heck, look at that old wxGTK stuff, it's nasty and
> confusing like hell).

wxGTK-2.6* is fully supported upstream as linked against gtk1 and gtk2.
However, that only is for things that exist already in case of gtk1 - we
can't implement everything for gtk1 due to it not being as feature-rich
as gtk2, and there is no point in implementing new features for gtk1
too, if it's easy with gtk2.

The official support for gtk1 will end with the development cycle of
2.7.x, and won't be considered a fully supported port with the stable
release of 2.8.x either. gtk1 code has been separated into a different
port, duplicating some of the common gtk code. wxGTK1 (wxGTK built
against GTK+-1.2) is essentially at the same level as wxMotif, wxX11 and
other similar community driven ports who don't get the full manpower of
developers. wxGTK2 however lives a happy life, free from the gtk1
burden.
So, for wxGTK-2.8.x whenever it's out (a year?) there is no USE flag
confusion - one port builds only against one major version of gtk2
(until gtk3 comes out, see Project Ridley).
There should be a different package for those that wish the wxGTK1 port,
if that package is needed at all.

This is also the way that I would suggest handling wxGTK today (2.4 and
2.6).
Have two different ebuilds, nuke that crazy no_wxgtk1 USE flag (and
perhaps have a USE flag for building non-unicode version together with
unicode version instead), use gtk instead of gtk2 flag and call it a
day.
Name em wxGTK and wxGTK1 for example, wxGTK1 perhaps even
package.mask'ed - not as feature-rich, more bugs than the gtk2 version,
etc.

That's then my view and suggestion on how to approach the wxGTK issue in
the way to get rid of the gtk2 USE flag.
As for the only valid reason to keep it that I've heard, which was
people wishing to prefer gtk1 when available for leaner resource usage,
I'd personally suggest a gtk1 USE flag instead of gtk2, as that is
rarely needed for normal people, and therefore no extra USE flag to set
in the common case.
I'd also suggest said people to disable anti-aliasing, use the default
gtk2 theme, and use gtk2.6 for not that bigger resource usage.

Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
funny to me, too.
Some two weeks have passed from 2.14 release, I would have expected it
to be in x86 at least a week ago... but I'm living in a utopian land.

--
With regards,
Mart Raudsepp

Project manager of wxMUD - http://wxmud.sourceforge.net/
Developer of wxWidgets - http://www.wxwidgets.org/
GTK+ port maintainer of OMGUI - http://www.omgui.org/

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

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 5:50:15 PM4/2/06
to
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> lets apply the same logic to all things unmaintained !

Yes, that's one reason I am so annoyed of the unmaintained parts of the tree.

> besides, you're talking about removing GTK1 completely ... this thread is
> talking about deprecating the gtk2 USE flag

Well, from my POV - <beep/>. You could at least change your packages to use
gtk2 by default to be consistent with the other packages and add a (local)
gtk1 use flag, so we can get rid of the gtk2 flag.


Carsten

foser

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 6:40:15 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was
> The Man, so i guess people forgot about that

That was never the case. We actually saw the gtk2 flag only as a
transitional tool during the initial release of gnome 2, too bad it
stuck around as long as it did.

> > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..
>
> and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simply drop the optional
> support. such a situation has not arose, so using such hypothetical examples
> is meaningless.

Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
2.0 . The only reason there has been some minimal support are the bling
distros like RH and the fact that Debian was stuck in the stone age.
Let's be realistic, if an application hasn't been ported to gtk+-2 yet
it is not maintained or it is an internal to some commercial business.

I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to
make it unneeded on most users systems.

- foser

signature.asc

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 6:50:15 PM4/2/06
to
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to
> make it unneeded on most users systems.
I would just give my 2 eurocents about this, although I originally wasn't so
keen on having gtk2 useflag dropped entirely.

gtk 1.2 has also quite a bit of unicode/utf-8 problems... on alsaplayer we
were plenty of crashes due to that.
We're in 2006 and many users with native languages that requires special
characters uses UTF-8, as it was discussed a while ago, with time, also users
having English as native language will start using UTF-8 to be able to
exchange information with the others... Mac OS X already uses UTF-8 by
default as system codepage.
This means that always more users will find problems and crashes with GTK
1.2...

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

foser

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 6:50:16 PM4/2/06
to
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the "lets remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one

Sure it does, in my experience unmaintained packages tend to depend on
unmaintained libs, which depend on other libs in older slotted versions.
Usually parts of such a dependency chain have open bugs, that have been
open for years and that are not going to be solved by anyone, because
frankly nobody cares about that old crap, but isn't bothered enough to
try and remove it and all of its reverse deps and take the flak for
that, because just one guy in this world is still a frantic user of said
package and will let the world know within 3 months after it has been
removed.

If you find something that hasn't been updated in 2-3 years, you are
bound to find a trail of bugs and tree garbage leading away from it. Get
rid of it, keep it clean.

- foser

signature.asc

foser

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 7:00:18 PM4/2/06
to
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:43 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
> funny to me, too.

These two things are not related, 2.14 is not delayed whatsoever.
Jakub's call was just to get attention to the bugs and didn't originate
from the gnome team at all.

> Some two weeks have passed from 2.14 release, I would have expected it
> to be in x86 at least a week ago... but I'm living in a utopian land.

I don't know where these expectations come from, but we intend to iron
out the major known issues before we put stuff in ~arch . 2 weeks is
rather short for a volunteer team of 2-3 active people for something the
size of gnome. It is the same sort of nonsense we got with earlier
releases, where people expect things to be in stable the day upstream
declares it release day. People seem to expect the impossible, if you
come from Debian the Gentoo cycle seems perfect, but as soon people are
used to Gentoo the complaining starts anew. Get a grip and try to help
out in constructive ways.

- foser

signature.asc

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 7:30:18 PM4/2/06
to
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
> simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
> 2.0 .

Why didn't you file (Gentoo) security bugs? Perfect reason to drop Gtk1
support, if no one steps up to fix them.


Carsten

Mart Raudsepp

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 7:30:22 PM4/2/06
to

That's what I did, and that's exactly the major part of what you cut out
from the reply quotes.
It being a blocker is exactly what I read out from the mails, without
having found a bug number, which I perhaps lost in all the long thread.
It being a _personal_ expectation was written with the notion that it
would be as such in an ideal world, with the context of it being
possibly blocked due to a USE flag in mind, and it was explicitly
expressed as such.
I do not see why I am getting such unconstructive replies to my majorly
constructive e-mails. Should I cease writing e-mails to gentoo-dev, at
the rare times I have something constructive to say?

Now someone that deals with wxGTK or poEdit feel free to put use the
constructive things I said in the thread if it's a good suggestion, and
I'll use my time on working on wxGTK instead and upgrading my ~x86
system that has GNOME-2.14 ;)
Great work it being in ~x86 already, btw!


-- Mart Raudsepp

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

Daniel Goller

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 8:00:09 PM4/2/06
to

you are really trying hard to get gtk(1)

>
> Carsten

signature.asc

Carsten Lohrke

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 8:30:13 PM4/2/06
to
On Monday 03 April 2006 01:54, Daniel Goller wrote:
> you are really trying hard to get gtk(1)

Everyone as s/he likes. I favor the deprecation of the gtk2 flag and start
dancing on my chair, once we have a Portage version with slot/use depends in
arch. But this is a completely different topic: Knowingly providing our
userbase with software that is vulnerable is a very bad. I'd argue the same
for any software.


Carsten

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages