[gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

Currently gnome profiles enable automatically "gtk" USE flag and, then,
most gtk based GUIs are installed by default on systems using that
profile. A special situation occurs when the package is based in wxGTK
as explained in:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411053

Currently, packages like mkvtoolnix simply builds without no gui at all
when using gnome profile because its gui is build with "wxwidgets" USE
flag. At first, I suggested to move from wxwidgets to "gtk" USE flag for
that package because that wxwidgets based gui is the only gtk gui
offered by that package. The problem is that their maintainers disagree
with that approach as explained in referred bug report. 

Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
profiles.

What do you think?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
> profiles.

I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way (to
let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.

With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting USE="-wxwidgets"
will have desired effect.

Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

El mar, 10-04-2012 a las 09:12 +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
> > profiles.
> 
> I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way (to
> let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.
> 
> With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
> desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting USE="-wxwidgets"
> will have desired effect.
> 
> Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
> would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
> surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.
> 

OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions
point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that
solution?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:21:20 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions
> point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that
> solution?

As I mentioned in the bug I'd like it default for desktop.  There's nothing
inherently "gnome" about wxwidgets other than the fact that it uses gtk+
widgets.  If the idea is that you won't get any gui at all if wxwidgets isn't
enabled (and I can't think of any packages where this isn't true) then kde
users should be included too.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Samuli Suominen]

On 04/11/2012 09:12 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:21:20 +0200
> Pacho Ramos<pacho@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>> OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions
>> point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that
>> solution?
>
> As I mentioned in the bug I'd like it default for desktop.  There's nothing
> inherently "gnome" about wxwidgets other than the fact that it uses gtk+
> widgets.  If the idea is that you won't get any gui at all if wxwidgets isn't
> enabled (and I can't think of any packages where this isn't true) then kde
> users should be included too.
>
>

+1

wxwidgets is not limited to gnome users, so goes to 
profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --]

El mié, 11-04-2012 a las 13:02 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 04/11/2012 09:12 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:21:20 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos<pacho@gentoo.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> OK, looks like I misunderstood how wxwidgets work and most opinions
> >> point to enable wxwidgets by default in gnome profiles, ok with that
> >> solution?
> >
> > As I mentioned in the bug I'd like it default for desktop.  There's nothing
> > inherently "gnome" about wxwidgets other than the fact that it uses gtk+
> > widgets.  If the idea is that you won't get any gui at all if wxwidgets isn't
> > enabled (and I can't think of any packages where this isn't true) then kde
> > users should be included too.
> >
> >
> 
> +1
> 
> wxwidgets is not limited to gnome users, so goes to 
> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults
> 

OK then to enable wxwidgets in desktop profile?


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 199 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:59:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> OK then to enable wxwidgets in desktop profile?

Yes.

-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 225 bytes --]

El dom, 15-04-2012 a las 23:58 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:59:11 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > OK then to enable wxwidgets in desktop profile?
> 
> Yes.
> 

Just done

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1404 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:12:16 +0200
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
> > profiles.
> 
> I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way
> (to let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.
> 
> With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
> desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting
> USE="-wxwidgets" will have desired effect.
> 
> Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
> would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
> surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, we should ask ourselves whether the USE flags are
very intuitive right now.

Say, we have USE=ssl which enables SSL support. We already agreed
that's the correct meaning of it, and USE=gnutls,openssl,nss are just
to be used when there's more than one implementation to choose from.

Shouldn't we have USE=gui in a similar fashion? Most of the devs
probably prefer the way 'I want GUI only if it's using my favorite
toolkit'. But users OTOH may prefer saying 'I want GUI in this app, no
matter what it uses'.

This would probably handle the wxwidgets case most correct, having it
under USE=gui or similar.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?

[Samuli Suominen]

On 04/16/2012 11:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:12:16 +0200
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr.""<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
>>> profiles.
>>
>> I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way
>> (to let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.
>>
>> With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
>> desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting
>> USE="-wxwidgets" will have desired effect.
>>
>> Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
>> would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
>> surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.
>
> On the other hand, we should ask ourselves whether the USE flags are
> very intuitive right now.
>
> Say, we have USE=ssl which enables SSL support. We already agreed
> that's the correct meaning of it, and USE=gnutls,openssl,nss are just
> to be used when there's more than one implementation to choose from.

USE=ssl is also meaning OpenSSL and there should be no USE=openssl
>
> Shouldn't we have USE=gui in a similar fashion? Most of the devs
> probably prefer the way 'I want GUI only if it's using my favorite
> toolkit'. But users OTOH may prefer saying 'I want GUI in this app, no
> matter what it uses'.
>
> This would probably handle the wxwidgets case most correct, having it
> under USE=gui or similar.
>

-1, this would only add inconsistency / complexity to tree with packages 
having multiple graphical toolkits to pick from

should be kept the way it is

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:22:22 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/16/2012 11:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:12:16 +0200
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr.""<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
> >>> profiles.
> >>
> >> I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way
> >> (to let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.
> >>
> >> With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
> >> desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting
> >> USE="-wxwidgets" will have desired effect.
> >>
> >> Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
> >> would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
> >> surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.
> >
> > On the other hand, we should ask ourselves whether the USE flags are
> > very intuitive right now.
> >
> > Say, we have USE=ssl which enables SSL support. We already agreed
> > that's the correct meaning of it, and USE=gnutls,openssl,nss are
> > just to be used when there's more than one implementation to choose
> > from.
> 
> USE=ssl is also meaning OpenSSL and there should be no USE=openssl
> >
> > Shouldn't we have USE=gui in a similar fashion? Most of the devs
> > probably prefer the way 'I want GUI only if it's using my favorite
> > toolkit'. But users OTOH may prefer saying 'I want GUI in this app,
> > no matter what it uses'.
> >
> > This would probably handle the wxwidgets case most correct, having
> > it under USE=gui or similar.
> >
> 
> -1, this would only add inconsistency / complexity to tree with
> packages having multiple graphical toolkits to pick from
> 
> should be kept the way it is

or maybe adding useflag properties in a future eapi, or meta
useflags abusing REQUIRED_USE:

gui? ( || ( wxwidgets gtk fltk ) )

and then the PM could support 'I want GUI in this app, no matter what it
uses' by automatically adding the first pick to package.use


not sure if its desirable though

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:22:22 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/16/2012 11:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:12:16 +0200
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr.""<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/10/12 8:58 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> Other option would be to enable "wxwidgets" by default for that
> >>> profiles.
> >>
> >> I prefer this. Changing USE flag meaning in a counter-intuitive way
> >> (to let "gtk" mean "wxwidgets") would seem frustrating to me.
> >>
> >> With "wxwidgets" enabled by default people will get the most likely
> >> desired result (i.e. GUI) "out of the box", and setting
> >> USE="-wxwidgets" will have desired effect.
> >>
> >> Note that with USE="gtk" really meaning USE="wxwidgets", -wxwidgets
> >> would have no effect on such a package, which is the potentially
> >> surprising behavior I mentioned earlier.
> >
> > On the other hand, we should ask ourselves whether the USE flags are
> > very intuitive right now.
> >
> > Say, we have USE=ssl which enables SSL support. We already agreed
> > that's the correct meaning of it, and USE=gnutls,openssl,nss are
> > just to be used when there's more than one implementation to choose
> > from.
> 
> USE=ssl is also meaning OpenSSL and there should be no USE=openssl

There could be one if an ebuild wishes to use non-openssl impl by
default but allows user to force openssl.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]