From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2TBoeLY031404 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:50:40 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-198.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.198] helo=exodus) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DGFF0-0000Et-M6 for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:50:39 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:50:40 -0600 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK und GTK2 Use Flag Message-ID: <20050329115039.GB29694@exodus> References: <42492AB5.8080903@gmx.at> <200503291304.17256@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20050329111138.GA10169@stud.seeling33.de> <200503291324.33892@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20050329113538.GA4377@valinor.dynalias.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050329113538.GA4377@valinor.dynalias.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Archives-Salt: 9b693770-9804-4a0c-94c3-fd2e2d20e053 X-Archives-Hash: fabf58a86d089199ab58b62feccd4f23 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:35:38PM +0100, David Morgan wrote: > On 13:24 Tue 29 Mar , Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 March 2005 13:11, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: > > > > -gtk +gtk2 is a no-op. > > > why? > > As Brian said, gtk2 depends on gtk. > > Just as a practical example, take ethereal, which could be built without gui > > support, just using tethereal. > > If you build it with -gtk +gtk2, it will build tethereal, not ethereal. I > > submitted some time ago a patch to make this a more logical behaviour, but I > > needed to change it to suit the same behaviour of other packages. See bug > > #81055. > > > > Take also amule which you can find on bugzilla as an example, which can be > > built without gtk support, and on which gtk2 support depends on gtk. > > > > Or wxGTK in which +wxnogtk flag is used to disable gtk1 support (there's gtk2 > > flag but no gtk flag). > > > > I still think this is illogical, but I can't do much on this. > > > > What if I want things to be built without gtk where ever possible, but I > want things that have to use either gtk1 or gtk2 to use gtk2? > > Under the current method this is what -gtk gtk2 should do, Actually, no. And that is why the gtk flags need changing. :) current setup. gtk ~= gtk support AND fall back to gtk v1 support. gtk2 ~= use gtk v2 support in preference to v1 if available. There is no way to state, "I want v2, and _only_ v2" without resorting to a package.mask'ing of gtk-1*. > since > something that has to use gtk won't have a gtk flag, but if there's a > choice between gtk1 and gtk2, it should have a gtk2 flag. > > I don't see how this would be possible under ferringb's scheme, my scheme- gtk == *any* version, the user doesn't care. gtk{1,2,3} == use that version. So... if you had USE="gtk2 and gtk3", ebuilds would use v3 if possible, otherwise v2. No gtk v1. If you had USE="gtk gtk2", you prefer gtk v2., but will use what is available (any version). > so I > prefer the current way (though if ferringb's way of doing it could be > modified to do this without getting too ugly I'd be just as happy with > that). The current scheme sucks for those who want a gtk v2 only system. How do you specify gtk v2 only under the current system using _just_ use flags? You don't. :) ~brian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list