[gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[cbrewer]

I had put that I would never see it because all gtk+ is being used for on this 
box is to run gkrellm2, on the occasion when I'm running it. The only time I 
get file choices are through the xmms plugin, otherwise I can recall no other 
instances. This is why I'd personally choose not to have the icons, or the 
libxml2,etc., as gtk+ itself is a heavy enough dep for that one app. I hold no 
bias against plain gtk+ users to have their icons, as I have been that route 
in the past, and it is a fine base for those applications, and the sprucing up 
would help. I have also thought about liquidx's idea of injecting the 
packages, but that does cause minor extra maintenence, and the idea of 
injecting  means (to me) that we need to inject because of lack of choice. 
Cutting this short, I would have no objection to a local USE of "filechooser" 
or "icons" so that each interested party can make their own choice.  
Thanks.  
--- 
Chuck Brewer 
Registered Linux User #284015 
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred. 
 

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]

Hey Chuck,

on that box, wouldn't be easier to just not build the gkrellm visual
stuff, and just use gkrellm on another box to connect to the gkrellmd?
That way, you don't need gtk2 at _all_.


-- 
Seemant Kulleen
http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag mess [was: addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)]

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On 05/12/04  cbrewer@stealthaccess.net wrote:

> Cutting this short, I would have no objection to a local USE
> of "filechooser" or "icons" so that each interested party can make
> their own choice.  Thanks.  

Please, not another local USE flag, we already have >300 of them, it's
becoming unmanagable. I'd be very happy if we actually could _reduce_
the number of local USE flags (of course without removing choice or
introducing a lot of other env variables).
So my request for package maintainers is: Please, before you introduce a
local flag to a package, double check that there really isn't an
existing flag that you could use.  If you think that your flag could be
combined with another one, please do so.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag mess [was: addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)]

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:

> Please, not another local USE flag, we already have >300 of them, it's
> becoming unmanagable.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a kind of tree structure for them, at least
when being displayed in ufed?
Something like "widget sets" "databases" "numeric libraries" "audio codecs"
"network protocols" springs to my mind...

Just loudly thinking,

Patrick	

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag mess [was: addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)]

[Caleb Tennis]

On Thursday 13 May 2004 01:59 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Please, not another local USE flag, we already have >300 of them, it's
> becoming unmanagable. I'd be very happy if we actually could _reduce_

I second this.  Local use flags are a mess.

Caleb


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag mess [was: addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)]

[Nick Dimiduk]

Caleb Tennis wrote:
> I second this.  Local use flags are a mess.

I would like to volunteer my time and effort to a working group with the 
intent of identifying issues with the current USE flag system and 
proposing a resolution, if such a decision is made by the higher-ups.

-Nick

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag mess [was: addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)]

[Alexander Gabert]

Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> Caleb Tennis wrote:
> 
>> I second this.  Local use flags are a mess.

Dear developers,

do you think some kind of "hierarchical" sorting and categories of USE 
flags would make it easier for users and developers to manage the large 
amount of the available set of choices for the installation of ebuilds?

Sincerely,

Alex

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 23:37 -0400, cbrewer@stealthaccess.net wrote:
> I had put that I would never see it because all gtk+ is being used for on this 
> box is to run gkrellm2, on the occasion when I'm running it. The only time I 
> get file choices are through the xmms plugin, otherwise I can recall no other 
> instances. This is why I'd personally choose not to have the icons, or the 
> libxml2,etc., as gtk+ itself is a heavy enough dep for that one app.

So for your specific case we should introduce new USEflags that actually
make the lib partially less usable ? Try to hold on to reality here.
What makes you think that the xmms plug-in devs won't update to the new
filechooser in time ? I wonder why you even update gtk+ if it's only for
this dep, that's pretty useless if it works ok and normal portage
behaviour doesn't update it in this case (-vup).

>  I hold no 
> bias against plain gtk+ users to have their icons, as I have been that route 
> in the past, and it is a fine base for those applications, and the sprucing up 
> would help. I have also thought about liquidx's idea of injecting the 
> packages, but that does cause minor extra maintenence, and the idea of 
> injecting  means (to me) that we need to inject because of lack of choice. 

Yeah the 'lack of choice' really is there, I mean we prevent you here
from having an unusable filechooser. That's a tough decision to make.
And yes.. in this one special case where you don't really need certain
deps at this point (you still might at some point) it's such a major
thing to inject a package. I mean that's really a lot of work to keep up
with. No for the sake of all of Gentoo we rather introduce another USE
flag for this.

> Cutting this short, I would have no objection to a local USE of "filechooser" 
> or "icons" so that each interested party can make their own choice. 

No we know you have no objection to that, isn't that what this whole
thread is about? You make it sound like you've gone a long way to get to
a compromise, but you are still at the same point.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[C. Brewer]

On Thursday May 13 2004 9:38, foser wrote:

> So for your specific case we should introduce new USEflags that actually
> make the lib partially less usable ? Try to hold on to reality here.
> What makes you think that the xmms plug-in devs won't update to the new
> filechooser in time ? I wonder why you even update gtk+ if it's only for
> this dep, that's pretty useless if it works ok and normal portage
> behaviour doesn't update it in this case (-vup).

> Yeah the 'lack of choice' really is there, I mean we prevent you here
> from having an unusable filechooser. That's a tough decision to make.
> And yes.. in this one special case where you don't really need certain
> deps at this point (you still might at some point) it's such a major
> thing to inject a package. I mean that's really a lot of work to keep up
> with. No for the sake of all of Gentoo we rather introduce another USE
> flag for this.

First of all, I never said for my specific case. one person put in a bug for 
filechooser icons, at least 2 people (including me) asked it be removed. So 
not just for me. I should just sit back and like that you added more deps, 
without saying anything? Apparently I'm not alone in need of a grip on 
reality. Also in your first paragraph you say 'partially less usable lib' and 
in your second paragraph 'unusable filechooser'. There has been no evidence 
that the lack of icons or libxml2 or any of the "new" deps have rendered any 
part of the lib unusable. Im quite sure that files to be chosen are the same 
files regardless of whether or not they show a pretty icon or not. As for the 
lame "we have too many USE flags" argument- you have use flags for tiff and 
jpeg.. the only packages really listed by gtk.org as deps. The message coming 
across now is "my make stuff pretty deps are not optional, but the required 
deps determined by the upstream authors are optional." Hmmm.


ftp://ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk/v2.4/dependencies/README


-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2291 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 16:55 -0700, C. Brewer wrote:
> First of all, I never said for my specific case. one person put in a bug for 
> filechooser icons, at least 2 people (including me) asked it be removed. So 
> not just for me. I should just sit back and like that you added more deps, 
> without saying anything? Apparently I'm not alone in need of a grip on 
> reality.

Well, I'm starting to lose it here as well. Pointless assumption based
jabbering that I have to take for serious discussion. I'm wasted.
Yeah 2 people at the start, it seems at least one by now got his senses
together and sees the point.

>  Also in your first paragraph you say 'partially less usable lib' and 
> in your second paragraph 'unusable filechooser'. There has been no evidence 
> that the lack of icons or libxml2 or any of the "new" deps have rendered any 
> part of the lib unusable. Im quite sure that files to be chosen are the same 
> files regardless of whether or not they show a pretty icon or not.

Have you tried it ? Apparently you didn't.

>  As for the 
> lame "we have too many USE flags" argument- you have use flags for tiff and 
> jpeg.. the only packages really listed by gtk.org as deps.

I don't think I used that as an argument not to do it. I wouldn't use it
as the only or main reason ever.

>  The message coming 
> across now is "my make stuff pretty deps are not optional, but the required 
> deps determined by the upstream authors are optional." Hmmm.

What a load of uninformed crap. The added deps are not there for
prettyness sake, as we've said from the start it is a usability issue.
And the deps determined by the upstream authors _are_ optional if you
could care enough to read the source. But hey we at least we can scrap 2
USE flags now, tiff and jpeg are non-optional because you say so. That
makes room for some silly new USE flag for the sake of 'choice'.

> ftp://ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk/v2.4/dependencies/README

Hmm as a dev you wouldn't ever use readme's but just check the source
for deps : readme's/specs/etc. tend not to be accurate & updated. See,
this readme here you use to prove your point is dated 2002. Go figure.

Anyway, I'm about done here. I can't take this thread serious in any way
anymore.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re:[gentoo-dev] addition of optional dependencies to (gtk+-2.4.1)

[C. Brewer]

Yeah, two people at the start, one must of remembered it's sacrilegious to 
question your all-knowingness. Let's recap, shall we?

1) I've tried it. Lack of icons hasn't kept me from choosing a file.
2) Yep, it's an ancient README. But it's written and able to be read globally. 
Your written proof is where? Oh, yes the source, in which no part declares it 
unusable without these icons, recommended maybe, unusable no.
3)I'm not a dev. I can claim lack of time or any other reasons I choose, but 
tops is mud-slinging thug devs. Community development is done by taking input 
and criticism from the community, neither which you handle well at all.Should 
just suffix packages under your care with .rpm or .deb, hell those devs think 
they're enabling reasonable defaults too.
4)I'm done with this thread as well, kick it up to management for review.


-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list