[gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1960 bytes --]

Okay,
   I spoke up a while ago about this, and came with correct and
suggested syntax for theese problems, but there seems to be a LOT of
cruft in the tree anyhow.


I did some grep for "gtk2"  IUSE statements, and went through them all. 
I'm sad to say that the majority of all ebuilds i found have severe
logic flaws.

Thats correct, Most of the builds -DONT- work either as they should nor
as intended.


Here is a list of broken ebuilds ( i tried to just get the latest
version )  , comments on -why- they are broken, and how it should be
done.

I dont have explicit knowledge about all theese builds, so some may be
special cases, but far from all are.


ATTN DEVS! 
   I want you all who are -responsible- for theese to go through and fix
this. ASAP.


   I could just as well have gone through all theese myself and checked
in the changes, but noone would learn what they were doing right by me
just fixing things for them.  Thats why I want the various maintainers
to have looks at it and fix. This way I hope I will Never have to face
this problem again.


If I find more builds with the same logic flaws in the future, I will
hard mask said builds and bug the maintainers in private, but this is a
wide sweep and I grabbed all of those that were on my list, checked and
signed up here.   

If you feel overwhelmed by the stuff you have, I'm sure there are bored
people around who want a go at cleaning things out, Just say so and it
will be fixed, we're a community after all.  


But, I feel like a grumpy old man now after wading through errors and
bugs (and bugzilla was too slow for me to even be usable, or you would
have had bugs a plenty there too. Hah, saved you were ;) so do take the
time to check the list, see what mistakes others have made, 
And Dont Repeat Them.


Regards, 
   Spider




-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #1.2: broken.ebuilds.txt --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 8089 bytes --]

./app-emulation/fuse/fuse-0.6.1.1.ebuild
broken DEPEND

./dev-games/ogre/ogre-0.12.0.ebuild
gtk2 misuse, should be gtk


./app-text/dasher/dasher-3.0.2.ebuild
no DEPEND logic

./dev-lisp/bigloo-lib/bigloo-lib-0.17.ebuild
is it really gtk? gtk2?  ?? weird

logic is flawed anyhow. should nest.



./dev-perl/gtk2-perl/gtk2-perl-0.12.ebuild
what does the gtk2 USE flag do? (IUSE bork)

./dev-python/twisted/twisted-1.1.0.ebuild
IUSE doesn't match USE flags

is logic really correct?


./games-board/ggz-gtk-client/ggz-gtk-client-0.0.7.ebuild
./games-board/ggz-gtk-games/ggz-gtk-games-0.0.7.ebuild


logic flawed, try

myconf="--enable-gtk2"
use gtk2 || myconf="--enable-gtk" 

, that will default to gtk2, and reset it if USE="-gtk2" is set.
currently it overrides gtk2 setting. BAD.



./games-emulation/psemu-cdr/psemu-cdr-1.8.ebuild

|| (
                gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2* )
                gtk? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1* )
                =x11-libs/gtk+-2*
        )
Messy. 
since gtk isn't optional, don't use that flag.

gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2* )
!gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1* )

We can only have gtk2, or not have gtk2.  since we need a gtk interface, we won't listen to "-gtk -gtk2" (however, in this case it will build the gtk 1.2 interface )

 


./games-strategy/dopewars/dopewars-1.5.8.ebuild

flawed DEPEND logic :
gtk? ()
gtk2? () 

This should be :
gtk? ( 
	gtk2? ( =dev-libs/gtk+-2* )
	!gtk2? ( =dev-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
)


this logic:
if [ "`use gtk`" ] || [ "`use gtk2`" ]
then
	myconf="$myconf --enable-gui-server"
	use gtk2 || myconf="$myconf --disable-glib2"
else
	myconf="$myconf --disable-gui-client"
fi


is flawed, should be :
if [ "`use gtk`" ];
then
	myconf="$myconf --enable-gui-server"
	use gtk2 || myconf="$myconf --disable-glib2"
else
	myconf="$myconf --disable-gui-client"
fi


the case "-gtk gtk2" is broken and should not give a gtk interface. providing this is flawed and will cause breakage in the near future.

./games-strategy/freeciv/freeciv-

        gtk? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1*
                        >=dev-libs/glib-1.2.5
                        >=media-libs/imlib-1.9.2
                        >=media-libs/libogg-1.0
                        >=media-libs/libvorbis-1.0-r2 )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.0
                        >=dev-libs/glib-2.0.0
                        >=dev-libs/atk-1.0.3
                        >=x11-libs/pango-1.0.5
                        >=media-libs/libogg-1.0
                        >=media-libs/libvorbis-1.0-r2 )"



This will in the case of USE="gtk gtk2" Force dependencies on -BOTH- gtk 1.2 and gtk 2.0, which is bad behaviour.




./gnome-extra/shermans-aquarium/shermans-aquarium-2.2.0.ebuild

IUSE="gtk gtk2" 

 you can't disable gtk, why is gtk listed as a USE flag?



./media-gfx/pornview/pornview-0.2.0_pre1.ebuild
hard dep on gtk 1.2 -AND- gtk 2 if gtk2 is enabled. 




./media-sound/aumix/aumix-2.8.ebuild
        gtk?  ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.0 )

Broken behaviour, change to
gtk? ( 
	gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.0 )
	!gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
)

and the logic inside :
local myconf
if use gtk2; then
	myconf="${myconf} --without-gtk1"
elif use gtk; then
	myconf="${myconf} --without-gtk"
else
	myconf="${myconf} --without-gtk --without-gtk1";
fi


to
if use gtk ;
then
	use gtk2 && myconf="${myconf} --without-gtk1"
else
	myconf="${myconf} --without-gtk --without-gtk1";
fi



./media-sound/gamix/gamix-1.99_p14.ebuild
DEPEND section wrong, no ()

Should this really have gtk2 flag? reconsider badly. the first dep suggests it will only build against gtk2 because dev-libs/gtk+ will always make for the latest.





./media-tv/nvtv/nvtv-0.4.5.ebuild

always depends on both gtk 1.2 and 2.x

gtk+ logic inside seems broken.




./media-video/mplayer/mplayer-1.0_pre2.ebuild
looks good except for inside the DEPEND subsection:

        gtk? ( !gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
                       =dev-libs/glib-1.2* )
               media-libs/libpng
               >=x11-base/xfree-4.2.1-r2 )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.6
                >=dev-libs/glib-2.0.6 )


the last gtk2?  should be moved inside the gtk? section :
( moved the libpng + xfree depends up just to get the logic clearer )

gtk? (
	media-libs/libpng
	>=x11-base/xfree-4.2.1-r2
	!gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
        	=dev-libs/glib-1.2* )
	gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.6
		>=dev-libs/glib-2.0.6 )
)


./media-video/nvclock/nvclock-0.7-r1.ebuild
gtk2 in IUSE. 





./net-analyzer/ethereal/ethereal-0.9.16.ebuild
        gtk2? ( >=dev-libs/glib-2.0.4 =x11-libs/gtk+-2* )
        !gtk2 ( gtk? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* ) )
Broken logic , won't detect "-gtk gtk2"  .invalid case, but should give the correct dependencies anyhow. 

gtk? (
	gtk2? ( >=dev-libs/glib-2.0.4 =x11-libs/gtk+-2* )
	!gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* ) 
)

The logic inside the build doesn't seem to detect USE="-gtk" if gtk+1.2 is disabled but installed.  (yes , this happens quite frequently. )




./net-analyzer/nessus-core/nessus-core-2.0.9.ebuild
        gtk? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
        gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2* )

Will cause USE="gtk gtk2" to depend on both. 

if [ `use gtk` ]; then
	myconf="${myconf} --enable-gtk"
elif [ `use gtk2` ]; then
	myconf="${myconf} --enable-gtk"
else
	myconf="${myconf} --disable-gtk"
fi


erm. if USE="gtk gtk2" it will be --enable-gtk --enable-gtk,
if USE="-gtk" it will be --disable-gtk .. 

Why does it check for "gtk2" here? seems unnecessary. suggested change:


use gtk && myconf="${myconf} --enable-gtk" || myconf="${myconf} --disable-gtk"



./net-im/linphone/linphone-0.12.0.ebuild
	gtk? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2 )

Bad, will depend on both versions :/
        if use gtk && use doc
        then
                myconf="${myconf} --enable-gtk-doc"
        else
                myconf="${myconf} --disable-gtk-doc"
        fi

remove the "use gtk" here, gtk-doc is a perl based documentation project (originally started to document the gtk+ api, therefore the name)  and has nothing to do with "gtk" 

        if use gnome
        then
            use gtk2 && myconf="${myconf} --enable-platform-gnome-2"
        else
            use gnome || myconf="${myconf}--enable-gnome_ui=no"
        fi


What? 
	gnome gtk gtk2 ==  gnome2 
	gnome gtk -gtk2 == ???
	-gnome -gnome == no gnome ? (and a broken myconf="" there too. )



Why the gtk?  in DEPEND when its never used in the mainline?
Why isn't gtk in IUSE?


./x11-misc/hotkeys/hotkeys-0.5.7.1-r1.ebuild
Bad use of "gtk2" , should be "gtk" 




./x11-plugins/gkrellm-bgchanger/gkrellm-bgchanger-0.0.4.ebuild
DEPEND="gtk2? ( =app-admin/gkrellm-2* )
        gtk? ( =app-admin/gkrellm-1.2* )"



USE="gtk gtk2" will give -what - dependencies? both?  sheesh.

gtk? (
	gtk2? ( =app-admin/gkrellm-2* )
	!gtk2? ( =app-admin/gkrellm-1.2* )
)





./x11-plugins/i8krellm/i8krellm-2.5.ebuild
        x11-libs/gtk+
        gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2*
                =app-admin/gkrellm-2* )


What will this depend on if I have USE="-gtk2" ?  Probably it will install gtk+2.0 anyhow. Theese deps should be fixed, see previous item as an example.




./x11-terms/mlterm/mlterm-2.8.0_p1-r1.ebuild


This one is wrong in several places, really "ouch" 
|| gtk? ... and then a gtk2 check? if they don't want gtk they don't want gtk. Either version.

if there isn't a choice then don't check for gtk! 





./x11-themes/redhat-artwork/redhat-artwork-0.88-r2.ebuild
        gtk? (  >=media-libs/gdk-pixbuf-0.2.5
                        =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
        kde? (  >=x11-libs/qt-3.0.5
                >=kde-base/kdebase-3.0.2 )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2* )

Here we go again, unescaped gtk/gtk2 sequence, in this case we want both, so it should be :
gtk? (
	>=media-libs/gdk-pixbuf-0.2.5
	=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
	gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2* )
)




./x11-wm/aewm/aewm-1.2.3.ebuild
Good escaping , but the syntax in DEPEND is deprecated. ( somone fix repoman! )
        gtk2? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.0.0 ) : ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* ) <-- this is deprecated.  still works, but won't in a while.






[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Jason Rhinelander]

I have a question regarding the gtk/gtk2 use flags - I recall a 
discussion recently that, if memory serves, basically said "gtk2 should 
be completely ignored if -gtk is present."

Did I misinterpret this?  Shouldn't USE="-gtk gtk2" be acceptable?  It 
seems to me that "gtk" is used to say "I want gtk support when it is 
optional" and "gtk2" means "When both gtk-1 and gtk-2 support is 
available, use gtk2."  So, to this end, "-gtk gtk2" should mean "if a 
package doesn't require gtk (of any version), don't build it.  If it 
does require gtk, use gtk2 support if possible."

Did I misunderstand the previous discussion, or is the above assumption 
correct?

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.


Spider wrote:
> Okay,
>    I spoke up a while ago about this, and came with correct and
> suggested syntax for theese problems, but there seems to be a LOT of
> cruft in the tree anyhow.
> 
> 
> I did some grep for "gtk2"  IUSE statements, and went through them all. 
> I'm sad to say that the majority of all ebuilds i found have severe
> logic flaws.
> 
> Thats correct, Most of the builds -DONT- work either as they should nor
> as intended.
> 
> 
> Here is a list of broken ebuilds ( i tried to just get the latest
> version )  , comments on -why- they are broken, and how it should be
> done.
> 
> I dont have explicit knowledge about all theese builds, so some may be
> special cases, but far from all are.
> 
> 
> ATTN DEVS! 
>    I want you all who are -responsible- for theese to go through and fix
> this. ASAP.
> 
> 
>    I could just as well have gone through all theese myself and checked
> in the changes, but noone would learn what they were doing right by me
> just fixing things for them.  Thats why I want the various maintainers
> to have looks at it and fix. This way I hope I will Never have to face
> this problem again.
> 
> 
> If I find more builds with the same logic flaws in the future, I will
> hard mask said builds and bug the maintainers in private, but this is a
> wide sweep and I grabbed all of those that were on my list, checked and
> signed up here.   
> 
> If you feel overwhelmed by the stuff you have, I'm sure there are bored
> people around who want a go at cleaning things out, Just say so and it
> will be fixed, we're a community after all.  
> 
> 
> But, I feel like a grumpy old man now after wading through errors and
> bugs (and bugzilla was too slow for me to even be usable, or you would
> have had bugs a plenty there too. Hah, saved you were ;) so do take the
> time to check the list, see what mistakes others have made, 
> And Dont Repeat Them.
> 
> 
> Regards, 
>    Spider
> 
> 
> 
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2832 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:18:04 -0800
Jason Rhinelander <jason@gossamer-threads.com> wrote:

> I have a question regarding the gtk/gtk2 use flags - I recall a 
> discussion recently that, if memory serves, basically said "gtk2
> should  be completely ignored if -gtk is present."

Yes. The logic should be :


if ( use gtk )
   then ( use gtk2 )
      do gtk 2.x stuff
   else
     do gtk 1.2 stuff
fi

So it should never even consider the "gtk2" USE flag if "-gtk" is an
option. 

However, in cases where there is a choice of :
gtk 1.2  or gtk 2 , and nothing else, then the "gtk2" flag is the -only-
variable to be checked, as it doesn't matter if the user sets "gtk" or
not. its a "hard" dependency.



> Did I misinterpret this?  Shouldn't USE="-gtk gtk2" be acceptable?  It
> seems to me that "gtk" is used to say "I want gtk support when it is 
> optional" and "gtk2" means "When both gtk-1 and gtk-2 support is 
> available, use gtk2."  So, to this end, "-gtk gtk2" should mean "if a 
> package doesn't require gtk (of any version), don't build it.  If it 
> does require gtk, use gtk2 support if possible."

No, "-gtk gtk2" Should mean " Dont ever build me a gtk interface. 
 But if a program has only gtk 1.2 or 2.0 , choose 2.0.


However, in almost all the cases I've pointed out here, the whole logic
tree is flawed, and DEPEND point at both, no matter what.

in the case where a program has only "gtk" and "gtk2" support. (Sylpheed
+ gtk2 patch for example )  The logic will look like this :

# We need gtk, so we assume it is set.
DEPEND="gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2.0* )
	!gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
	other/deps "


src_compile () {
	use gtk2 &&  myconf="--with-gtk=2" || myconf="--with-gtk=1.2"
}

------

However, if we have curses, gtk and gtk2  the tree must look like this:

DEPEND="gtk? ( 
		gtk2? ( =x11-libs/gtk+-2.0* )
		!gtk2? (  =x11-libs/gtk+-1.2* )
	)
	!gtk ( sys-libs/ncurses )"

src_compile () {
	if [ `use gtk`] ; then
		use gtk2 && myconf="--with-ui=gtk2" || myconf="--with-ui=gtk1"
	else
		myconf="--with-ui=curses"
	fi
}


In a case like this USE="-gtk gtk2"  will be undefined, and if the
ebuild has logic that allows this combination, it is -broken-



> 
> Did I misunderstand the previous discussion, or is the above
> assumption correct?

I hope the current explination shows it well enough.


Correct behaviour is that "gtk2" is a -PREFERENCE- flag.  If you set it,
you indicate that if given the choice between old and new, you choose
new.

gtk2 is not an -enabling- flag.   if you have "gtk+ 2.0 based, or qt
based" Then you should -NOT- use gtk2 USE flag, but "gtk" USE flag.


   I hope I'm not confusing people further.


//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[foser]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 03:40, Spider wrote:
<snip>

In short it is like this :

USE="gtk gtk2"

Use gtk+ UI if available (this might be gtk+-1 or gtk+-2, depending on
the application & version), if there's both gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 UIs in the
package build the gtk+-2 UI.

USE="gtk -gtk2"

Use gtk+ UI if available (this might be gtk+-1 or gtk+-2, depending on
the application & version), if there's both a gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 UIs in
the package build the gtk+-1 UI.

USE="-gtk -gtk2"

Always disable optional gtk+ UI support (doesn't matter if it's gtk+-1
or gtk+-2).

USE="-gtk gtk2" 

Illegal for builds that have an optional gtk+-1 or gtk+-2 UI. 'gtk2' is
a qualifier for 'gtk' and should have no effect in this case, the gtk+
UI building has been disabled with '-gtk'. This logic is flawed in quite
a few ebuilds and this combination results in undefined behaviour and
should be fixed.

Could be considered legal for builds that have a non-optional gtk+-1 or
gtk+-2 gui. Although in this case for simplicity and consistency sake i
would suggest we just default to the most mature and/or recent one of
the UIs and make it use the 'gtk' USE flag only. In time we should be
able to phase out the gtk2 USE flag altogether (it was meant as a short
transition flag).


The gtk/gtk2 USE flag combination has been a source of confusion over
time, in retrospect this may not have been the best solution to the
mixed packages problem at the time (both gtk+1 and gtk+-2 UIs in one
package). It worked sufficiently up to now and changing it would
probably more trouble than that would be gained from it.

In a future similar case this would most likely be done in a different
way.

For now i suggest devs trying to fix their ebuild's gtk/gtk2 handling to
contact one of the gnome devs to work out the best fix.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 22 November 2003 06:50, foser wrote:
> The gtk/gtk2 USE flag combination has been a source of confusion over
> time, in retrospect this may not have been the best solution to the
> mixed packages problem at the time (both gtk+1 and gtk+-2 UIs in one
> package). It worked sufficiently up to now and changing it would
> probably more trouble than that would be gained from it.
>
> In a future similar case this would most likely be done in a different
> way.
>
> For now i suggest devs trying to fix their ebuild's gtk/gtk2 handling to
> contact one of the gnome devs to work out the best fix.

why not change ?
as you say, it's always been confusing and it still is confusing ...
i know every single ebuild i've ever produced/maintained uses the logic 
gtk==gtk1 and gtk2==gtk2.  i've made a lot of ebuilds ;)

perhaps it isnt as costly as it may seem to move to a gtk1 and a gtk2 USE flag 
system ...
-mike



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

Vapier wrote:	[Sat Nov 22 2003, 05:46:59PM EST]
> perhaps it isnt as costly as it may seem to move to a gtk1 and a gtk2
> USE flag system ...

No, that doesn't solve the various dilemmas.  Some packages provide both
gtk1 and gtk2 possibilities (for example app-editors/gvim).  Changing
gtk to gtk1 doesn't answer the question of which to use when USE="gtk1
gtk2".  With the current flag semantics, confusing as they are, there is
at least a clear choice in that case.

Unless better reasoning is given, I think we should stick with gtk/gtk2
for USE flags.  USE=gtk means to use a gtk interface if possible, either
gtk1 or gtk2.  USE=gtk2 means to prefer gtk2 over gtk1 when there is a
choice, such as in gvim.  This gives the user the most control.

Aron

-- 
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:46:59 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:



> why not change ?
> as you say, it's always been confusing and it still is confusing ...
> i know every single ebuild i've ever produced/maintained uses the
> logic  gtk==gtk1 and gtk2==gtk2.  i've made a lot of ebuilds ;)
> 
> perhaps it isnt as costly as it may seem to move to a gtk1 and a gtk2
> USE flag  system ...

My super-secret plan is this: 
make gtk2 USE flag default.


wait 3 months

deprecate gtk2 USE flag, add "gtk-classic" or "deprecated-and-broken"
USE flag, and use that for cases where both are avaiable to select the
old gtk+-1.2 interface.

Ain't It much better? ;)

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[foser]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 23:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> why not change ?
> as you say, it's always been confusing and it still is confusing ...
> i know every single ebuild i've ever produced/maintained uses the logic 
> gtk==gtk1 and gtk2==gtk2.  i've made a lot of ebuilds ;)
> 
> perhaps it isnt as costly as it may seem to move to a gtk1 and a gtk2 USE flag 
> system ...

It's not confusing to me, it's confusing trough mis- or non-information,
the flag descriptions are sufficiently clear.

I can see why you would want it to change, it's less costly for you ;)

Changing it now would only make it more confusing than it is already.
The intention is to get rid of the flag in time anyway.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[foser]

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 00:06, Spider wrote:
> My super-secret plan is this: 
<super-secret plan>
> Ain't It much better? ;)

No, it's the same idea the other way around. As mentioned earlier : in
most cases it was meant as a transition flag. Transition done ? Make the
stable and maintained UI default. One gtk flag to own them all.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

foser wrote:	[Sat Nov 22 2003, 06:34:36PM EST]
> No, it's the same idea the other way around. As mentioned earlier : in
> most cases it was meant as a transition flag. Transition done ? Make the
> stable and maintained UI default. One gtk flag to own them all.

Btw, I would be okay with this (removing the gtk2 flag and switching to
gtk only) except that it would mean the introduction of a local USE-flag
into lots of ebuilds to control whether to build with gtk1 or gtk2 (for
example gvim).  Since I think there would be a few ebuilds in that
position, it makes sense to keep gtk2 as a global flag which is on by
default.

Aron

-- 
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 877 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:34:36 +0100
foser <foser@foser.dyn.warande.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 00:06, Spider wrote:
> > My super-secret plan is this: 
> <super-secret plan>
> > Ain't It much better? ;)
> 
> No, it's the same idea the other way around. As mentioned earlier : in
> most cases it was meant as a transition flag. Transition done ? Make
> the stable and maintained UI default. One gtk flag to own them all.

Yeah, I know. It was meant as sarcasm. But in fact, making "gtk2" the
default is the first step in deprecating the flag completely.

After this we can see how many gtk2 interfaces get bugs , and then
change those over and start to work on local flags where they are
necessary.


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[foser]

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 00:43, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Btw, I would be okay with this (removing the gtk2 flag and switching to
> gtk only) except that it would mean the introduction of a local USE-flag
> into lots of ebuilds to control whether to build with gtk1 or gtk2 (for
> example gvim).  Since I think there would be a few ebuilds in that
> position, it makes sense to keep gtk2 as a global flag which is on by
> default.

Abandoning the gtk2 flag is a mid to long-term plan, for now things stay
as they are. Only the flawed ebuild logic should be fixed, that's still
the main point of this thread :)

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]

On Sunday 23 November 2003 00:34, foser wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 00:06, Spider wrote:
> > My super-secret plan is this:
>
> <super-secret plan>
>
> > Ain't It much better? ;)
>
> No, it's the same idea the other way around. As mentioned earlier : in
> most cases it was meant as a transition flag. Transition done ? Make the
> stable and maintained UI default. One gtk flag to own them all.
>

What about mozilla. The gtk2 version of galeon is certainly not yet up to par 
with the gtk1 version. I certainly want to be able to continue to use the 
gtk1 galeon.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:21:33 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sunday 23 November 2003 00:34, foser wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 00:06, Spider wrote:
> > > My super-secret plan is this:
> >
> > <super-secret plan>
> >
> > > Ain't It much better? ;)
> >
> > No, it's the same idea the other way around. As mentioned earlier :
> > in most cases it was meant as a transition flag. Transition done ?
> > Make the stable and maintained UI default. One gtk flag to own them
> > all.
> >
> 
> What about mozilla. The gtk2 version of galeon is certainly not yet up
> to par with the gtk1 version. I certainly want to be able to continue
> to use the  gtk1 galeon.

Mozilla will keep with its gtk 1.2 UI until all things who depend on it
are ready.  Galeon 1.3 is still under development and masked, so it will
not  superseed the old galeon.

However , when gtk2 is the default USE flag we need to implement the
check from galeon 1.3 and epiphany into Galeon. (gtk version)


I dont intend to destroy the tree out of folly, even if it would be very
nice to rip out all "legacy" code ;-)

 //Spider 
-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[foser]

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 12:40, Spider wrote:
> > What about mozilla. The gtk2 version of galeon is certainly not yet up
> > to par with the gtk1 version. I certainly want to be able to continue
> > to use the  gtk1 galeon.
> 
> Mozilla will keep with its gtk 1.2 UI until all things who depend on it
> are ready.  Galeon 1.3 is still under development and masked, so it will
> not  superseed the old galeon.
> 
> However , when gtk2 is the default USE flag we need to implement the
> check from galeon 1.3 and epiphany into Galeon. (gtk version)

If gtk2 is default galeon 1.3 needs to be the default as well. 1.3 is
deemed stable by the upstream developers for normal use, so i don't
think it is much of a problem for the casual user.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ATTENTION! Broken builds ahead

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

On Sunday 23 November 2003 14:10, foser wrote:
>
> If gtk2 is default galeon 1.3 needs to be the default as well. 1.3 is
> deemed stable by the upstream developers for normal use, so i don't
> think it is much of a problem for the casual user.
>
I have actually tried galeon 1.3 and at that time it missed features. They 
were serious enough to revert to galeon 1.2. I agree however that it is 
stable.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]