* [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
@ 2012-04-10 6:58 Pacho Ramos
2012-04-10 7:12 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-04-10 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
2012-04-10 6:58 [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles Pacho Ramos
@ 2012-04-10 7:12 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2012-04-10 20:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-16 8:11 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles) Michał Górny
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." @ 2012-04-10 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
2012-04-10 7:12 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
@ 2012-04-10 20:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-11 6:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2012-04-16 8:11 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles) Michał Górny
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-04-10 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
2012-04-10 20:21 ` Pacho Ramos
@ 2012-04-11 6:12 ` Ryan Hill
2012-04-11 10:02 ` Samuli Suominen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ryan Hill @ 2012-04-11 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
2012-04-11 6:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
@ 2012-04-11 10:02 ` Samuli Suominen
2012-04-15 16:59 ` Pacho Ramos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Samuli Suominen @ 2012-04-11 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles
2012-04-11 10:02 ` Samuli Suominen
@ 2012-04-15 16:59 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-16 5:58 ` Ryan Hill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-04-15 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles)
2012-04-10 7:12 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2012-04-10 20:21 ` Pacho Ramos
@ 2012-04-16 8:11 ` Michał Górny
2012-04-16 8:22 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? Samuli Suominen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-04-16 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: phajdan.jr
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?
2012-04-16 8:11 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles) Michał Górny
@ 2012-04-16 8:22 ` Samuli Suominen
2012-04-16 14:49 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-04-16 17:12 ` Michał Górny
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Samuli Suominen @ 2012-04-16 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?
2012-04-16 8:22 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? Samuli Suominen
@ 2012-04-16 14:49 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-04-16 17:12 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Alexis Ballier @ 2012-04-16 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE=gui?
2012-04-16 8:22 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? Samuli Suominen
2012-04-16 14:49 ` Alexis Ballier
@ 2012-04-16 17:12 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2012-04-16 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ssuominen
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
@ 2015-09-09 7:20 Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
2015-09-09 7:24 ` Daniel Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paweł Hajdan, Jr. @ 2015-09-09 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1155 bytes --]
A user asked for optional gtk3 support in www-client/chromium:
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559378>
However, reading e.g.
<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:GNOME/Gnome_Team_Ebuild_Policies#gtk3>
says this:
> having USE=gtk3 to enable gtk+-3 instead of gtk+-2 support is
> forbidden
> package is an application with support for multiple gtk+, maintainer
> is free to select whatever slot he desires to support. It is strongly
> advised to use gtk+-3 if functionality is equivalent. This is to
> reduce workload of bugs being triggered with one slot but not the
> other.
What are your recommendations for the best course of action?
For stability and maintainability, I'd prefer www-client/chromium to use
the upstream defaults (gtk+-2 AFAIK) since it's most common, tested, and
supported configuration. If/when upstream moves to gtk+-3, we'd just follow.
I also understand we have users who are eager to run various
configurations, and expect Gentoo to be flexible and allow that. Would
masking a gtk3 USE flag for www-client/chromium be acceptable? Are there
any other solutions that might work?
Paweł
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 841 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-09 7:20 [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
@ 2015-09-09 7:24 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-09 10:37 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2015-09-09 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/09/2015 12:20 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> A user asked for optional gtk3 support in www-client/chromium:
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559378>
>
> However, reading e.g.
> <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:GNOME/Gnome_Team_Ebuild_Policies
#gtk3>
>
>
says this:
>
>> having USE=gtk3 to enable gtk+-3 instead of gtk+-2 support is
>> forbidden
>
>> package is an application with support for multiple gtk+,
>> maintainer is free to select whatever slot he desires to support.
>> It is strongly advised to use gtk+-3 if functionality is
>> equivalent. This is to reduce workload of bugs being triggered
>> with one slot but not the other.
>
> What are your recommendations for the best course of action?
>
> For stability and maintainability, I'd prefer www-client/chromium
> to use the upstream defaults (gtk+-2 AFAIK) since it's most common,
> tested, and supported configuration. If/when upstream moves to
> gtk+-3, we'd just follow.
>
> I also understand we have users who are eager to run various
> configurations, and expect Gentoo to be flexible and allow that.
> Would masking a gtk3 USE flag for www-client/chromium be
> acceptable? Are there any other solutions that might work?
>
> Paweł
>
x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well. I stay in line
with GNOME suggestions by making gtk3 the default, but gtk2
configurable via USE. Versioned USE flags are generally frowned upon,
but I see no better way to support both a GTK3 default *and* allow for
the GTK2 support. Part of the reason I came to Gentoo (and became a
dev) is to support user choice, and personally as a maintainer that
matters more than suggestions.
If the GNOME team has a solid recommendation for supporting both GTK2
and 3, I'll read it. But for now, defaulting IUSE to gtk3 and allowing
the user to set gtk2 is the best of both worlds imo.
- --
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=Q16B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-09 7:24 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2015-09-09 10:37 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 6:21 ` Daniel Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: hasufell @ 2015-09-09 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well.
It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags should be
removed to be consistent with the rest of the tree.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-09 10:37 ` hasufell
@ 2015-09-10 6:21 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-10 8:47 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2015-09-10 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/09/2015 03:37 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well.
>
> It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags should be
> removed to be consistent with the rest of the tree.
>
Upstream deliberately supports GTK2 and GTK3 to provide users with
choice. The default choice in the ebuild is gtk3, falling in line with
gnome team's recommendations, but gtk2 is available for those who
prefer it that way.
For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a
package inferior to upstream. Given the divide among users over the
toolkit, I think it's fair to provide support for both where possible,
but lean in the direction of gtk3 for defaults so the Path of Least
Surprise is maintained.
If you have a better recommendation for allowing both toolkits being
supported, I'd be glad to read it.
- --
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=ZLIv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-10 6:21 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2015-09-10 8:47 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 18:15 ` Daniel Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: hasufell @ 2015-09-10 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a
> package inferior to upstream.
That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking anything. It is not.
Providing choice for the sake of choice is not always a good idea.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-10 8:47 ` hasufell
@ 2015-09-10 18:15 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-10 18:21 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2015-09-10 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/10/2015 01:47 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be
>> providing a package inferior to upstream.
>
> That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking anything. It is not.
> Providing choice for the sake of choice is not always a good idea.
>
To my knowledge, the gtk3 version of spacefm *did* indeed have less
functionality, at first. I think they're mostly the same nowadays,
though. That said, I wasn't saying gtk3 support was lacking. But if
our package supports less things than upstreams, we're not shipping
/as complete/ a package.
For cases where either toolkit is unstable or doesn't work, I'm with
you: things that are unstable should either be clearly marked as such
or not added to the ebuild at all. But in spacefm's case, upstream
actively supports both toolkits and respects the user's choice.
Following suit here is the best idea, simply because we'd be providing
the same package and not forcing a choice on the user.
If there was something wrong with the gtk2 build -- let's say later on
gtk2 just goes unmaintained and starts breaking on Gentoo -- then
absolutely it should be removed. But for now, I think both should be
supported.
As for USE flag names, personally it doesn't really matter. I wouldn't
mind switching USE flag names, but as you said, we need consistency.
But as long as I'm maintainer of a package that gives users options
between toolkits, I will support them because as long as said toolkit
works, it's a sane choice that's *worth* supporting.
Of course, that's just my opinion and others are free to discard or
ridicule it as they see fit.
tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If it's
supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no reason not to
let maintainers use their discretion and not force their hand in
either direction.
- --
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=oW5i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-10 18:15 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2015-09-10 18:21 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 18:26 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: hasufell @ 2015-09-10 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> To my knowledge, the gtk3 version of spacefm *did* indeed have less
> functionality, at first. I think they're mostly the same nowadays,
> though.
That's why spacefm ebuild did not switch to gtk3 when gtk3 support was
still experimental.
> That said, I wasn't saying gtk3 support was lacking. But if
> our package supports less things than upstreams, we're not shipping
> /as complete/ a package.
>
This sentiment is very confusing. Not even spacefm provides all
available configure switches as USE flags and I am glad that it does not.
>
> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If it's
> supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no reason not to
> let maintainers use their discretion and not force their hand in
> either direction.
>
We have provided several arguments here repeatedly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-10 18:21 ` hasufell
@ 2015-09-10 18:26 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 9:03 ` Daniel Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2015-09-10 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If it's
>> supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no reason not to
>> let maintainers use their discretion and not force their hand in
>> either direction.
>>
>
> We have provided several arguments here repeatedly.
>
Well, right now the status quo is that this is up to maintainers.
There is no policy that states otherwise.
The USE flag issue is on the next council agenda, though I'm not
really confident that we'll resolve it in one go - there are only a
few days before the meeting. If anybody has concerns about the
approach that we take I'd suggest posting them on the thread, but I
suspect that most likely the council will go around the circle and
assess where everybody generally stands, then propose something more
solid for a vote the following meeting (which gives everybody an
opportunity to shoot holes it in beforehand).
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-10 18:26 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2015-09-11 9:03 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-11 12:13 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2015-09-11 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/10/2015 11:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If
>>> it's supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no
>>> reason not to let maintainers use their discretion and not
>>> force their hand in either direction.
>>>
>>
>> We have provided several arguments here repeatedly.
>>
>
> Well, right now the status quo is that this is up to maintainers.
> There is no policy that states otherwise.
>
> The USE flag issue is on the next council agenda, though I'm not
> really confident that we'll resolve it in one go - there are only
> a few days before the meeting. If anybody has concerns about the
> approach that we take I'd suggest posting them on the thread, but
> I suspect that most likely the council will go around the circle
> and assess where everybody generally stands, then propose something
> more solid for a vote the following meeting (which gives everybody
> an opportunity to shoot holes it in beforehand).
>
Honestly, I can understand where the gnome team is coming from wrt
keeping things moving forward. I personally don't think highly of
gtk3, but in the grand scheme of things, if that's where it's going,
maybe we *should* establish some policy on how USE flags are named
and/or used. Use cases do indeed differ; sometimes it enables an
optional GUI, sometimes it's one of many toolkit options. Whatever
decision is made I'm fine with so long as I can ensure users of
packages I maintain can choose which toolkit the package is built with
(assuming upstream supports it, of course).
I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to choose *which*
toolkit, and local USE flags for specific versions, if they are
supported. But in that case, the general gtk flag should be
interpreted as the latest version supported, so users don't come
across weirdly behaving packages that default to gtk2 (unless that
version is the most stable).
It's hard to apply such standards across a tree of thousands of
packages, each with their own upstreams, build systems, code
standards, and so on. I'm sure there's something we can find that
enables us to continue providing choice to users while maintaining
some semblance of consistency across the tree.
For starters, versioned USE flags more than likely don't belong in
make.conf's USE variable and shouldn't be global.
- --
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=v5ss
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-11 9:03 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2015-09-11 12:13 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 17:11 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2015-09-11 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to choose *which*
> toolkit, and local USE flags for specific versions, if they are
> supported. But in that case, the general gtk flag should be
> interpreted as the latest version supported, so users don't come
> across weirdly behaving packages that default to gtk2 (unless that
> version is the most stable).
>
>...
>
> For starters, versioned USE flags more than likely don't belong in
> make.conf's USE variable and shouldn't be global.
>
That was roughly my proposal.
USE=gui or something like that if the main effect is to have a gui or
not. That is the sort of thing that SHOULD go in make.conf or in a
profile. If disabling gtk makes it a console-only application then
use the gui flag.
USE=gtk if the main effect is to select /which/ toolkit is used if
more than one is optionally supported. That /might/ go in a make.conf
or profile, but probably shouldn't in general. It is more appropriate
for something like the desktop/gnome profile than the desktop profile.
USE=gtk# if you're picking which version to use. That should /almost
never/ go in a profile (unless you're talking about a testing profile
of some kind, such as on an overlay), or in a global config unless you
REALLY know what you're getting into. Users setting this globally
should expect to run into bugs. The package should default these
flags to whatever is most appropriate for the specific package.
I'd be tempted to even say to not have gtk3 but instead call the flag
chromium-gtk3 or whatever so that it becomes very difficult to put in
the global config. However, that goes against our general principle
of letting the user break their system and keep the pieces if they
think they know what they're doing. If somebody WANTS to test out a
gtk3-only system or whatever they should have the freedom to do so,
understanding that testing sometimes uncovers problems.
Of course any change will need a transition period, news, handbook
updates, etc. For the person who wants the "just works" experience
they can pick a profile and it will do the right thing, and if they
want to tailor things a bit more the USE=(-)gui flag will do what it
would be expected to do.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-11 12:13 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2015-09-11 17:11 ` Duncan
2015-09-11 17:41 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2015-09-11 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 -0400 as excerpted:
> USE=gui or something like that if the main effect is to have a gui or
> not.
> That is the sort of thing that SHOULD go in make.conf or in a profile.
> If disabling gtk makes it a console-only application then use the gui
> flag.
I like the general proposal, but since it's going to council, can we try
to kill another bird with the same stone? This USE=gui helps...
Wayland's coming, and to the extent that USE=X has previously indicated a
GUI, much like USE=gtk and USE=qt indicating the same thing, we're going
to have problems.
Can we make USE=gui the generic policy for that, and deprecate more
specific forms for choosing /any/ gui, so they can be used for choosing
/which/ gui?
Then of course ordain both X and wayland USE flags for choosing specific
gui platform, like gtk and qt did at their level traditionally.
The question then remains whether ncurses, etc, should be treated as a
gui. Maybe make mention of that one way or the other in the policy as
well.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: www-client/chromium gtk3 support
2015-09-11 17:11 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
@ 2015-09-11 17:41 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 18:03 ` [gentoo-dev] USE="gui" Ian Stakenvicius
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2015-09-11 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> USE=gui or something like that if the main effect is to have a gui or
>> not.
>> That is the sort of thing that SHOULD go in make.conf or in a profile.
>> If disabling gtk makes it a console-only application then use the gui
>> flag.
>
> I like the general proposal, but since it's going to council, can we try
> to kill another bird with the same stone? This USE=gui helps...
>
> Wayland's coming, and to the extent that USE=X has previously indicated a
> GUI, much like USE=gtk and USE=qt indicating the same thing, we're going
> to have problems.
>
> Can we make USE=gui the generic policy for that, and deprecate more
> specific forms for choosing /any/ gui, so they can be used for choosing
> /which/ gui?
That was exactly why I used "gui" and not "X". We're going to run
into the exact same problem once Wayland comes along with the way
things have been done so far.
>
> The question then remains whether ncurses, etc, should be treated as a
> gui. Maybe make mention of that one way or the other in the policy as
> well.
>
I actually was pondering that and left it out of my email. My gut
feeling is that ncurses should be left alone for now. USE=-gui would
mean console-only, whether that happens to include support for
ncurses, aa, or whatever.
Are there any applications out there which behave dramatically
differently if they do/don't have ncurses support built-in? If you
set TERM=dumb I imagine that software which actually supports this
would just behave accordingly (ie if it is just using colors or moving
progress bars or whatever it will drop the decorations). Usually
though dumb terminal software tends to be somewhat dedicated (for
things like editors and the like).
I don't want to complicate things if nobody really cares about them.
However, in theory you could treat various console-enhancing libraries
in the same way. There is also svgalib and the like.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"
2015-09-11 17:41 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2015-09-11 18:03 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2015-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 20:34 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ian Stakenvicius @ 2015-09-11 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 11/09/15 01:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 -0400 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> USE=gui or something like that if the main effect is to have
>>> a gui or not. That is the sort of thing that SHOULD go in
>>> make.conf or in a profile. If disabling gtk makes it a
>>> console-only application then use the gui flag.
>>
>> I like the general proposal, but since it's going to council,
>> can we try to kill another bird with the same stone? This
>> USE=gui helps...
>>
>> Wayland's coming, and to the extent that USE=X has previously
>> indicated a GUI, much like USE=gtk and USE=qt indicating the
>> same thing, we're going to have problems.
>>
>> Can we make USE=gui the generic policy for that, and deprecate
>> more specific forms for choosing /any/ gui, so they can be used
>> for choosing /which/ gui?
>
> That was exactly why I used "gui" and not "X". We're going to
> run into the exact same problem once Wayland comes along with the
> way things have been done so far.
>
So, IUSE="X" has generally been used for gui, but more technically
it's used to depend on and build against x11-libs/* packages. The
fact that this gives a GUI is practically a side-effect. When
wayland comes along, do these packages still build against
x11-libs/* to support wayland?
I'm just wondering if we're jumping the gun a little bit on
IUSE="gui".. yes it'll be nice to have one flag that "just works"
for anyone not caring about the details, but it'll also mean
propagating a slew of REQUIRED_USE=" {X,wayland,gtk,qt4,qt5}? ( gui
)" entries and a lot of extra use-defaults which may or may not
cleanup the sub-profiles of desktop/ ....
Also, I believe we need to have the conversation about the pros and
cons of IUSE=gui here before the council meeting, yes?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXzF48ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0ZQwD8CPt1rOkynOgb/as1gH/u2iYY
Du/EFPwleMDHVgMJDFYBAOfjguA8D1xTPJU9vzsvBf+y4rVFVvvFHuIX8+yyadjD
=SnN3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"
2015-09-11 18:03 ` [gentoo-dev] USE="gui" Ian Stakenvicius
@ 2015-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 20:34 ` hasufell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2015-09-11 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm just wondering if we're jumping the gun a little bit on
> IUSE="gui".. yes it'll be nice to have one flag that "just works"
> for anyone not caring about the details, but it'll also mean
> propagating a slew of REQUIRED_USE=" {X,wayland,gtk,qt4,qt5}? ( gui
> )" entries and a lot of extra use-defaults which may or may not
> cleanup the sub-profiles of desktop/ ....
A completely valid concern. Of course, there is no requirement that
all this stuff happen overnight.
> Also, I believe we need to have the conversation about the pros and
> cons of IUSE=gui here before the council meeting, yes?
You can read my original post to -project:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/4776
I did start it out with my reservation that this probably wouldn't
come to a vote. However, I did want to at least toss out a specific
proposal so that we have something to throw darts at, vs just going
around the room saying "sounds like something that might need some
attention."
This is of course an opportunity to have that conversation, but I
recognize that we're starting pretty late considering the timing of
the meeting. I didn't really intend to actually push for a vote on
this.
Most likely we'll express thoughts both pro and con, and then take it
back to the lists and maybe try to finalize something next month.
My sense is that this has been going on for a long time though and
we're seeing problems over and over. I agree that wayland is still a
bit off in the future, but I can see it coming up again there. In the
meantime both qt and gtk have run into this. I don't want to do
something just to do something, but it seems like my proposal is along
the lines of what most have been talking about.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"
2015-09-11 18:03 ` [gentoo-dev] USE="gui" Ian Stakenvicius
2015-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2015-09-11 20:34 ` hasufell
2015-09-11 23:52 ` Daniel Campbell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: hasufell @ 2015-09-11 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09/11/2015 08:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> So, IUSE="X" has generally been used for gui, but more technically
> it's used to depend on and build against x11-libs/* packages. The
> fact that this gives a GUI is practically a side-effect. When
> wayland comes along, do these packages still build against
> x11-libs/* to support wayland?
>
> I'm just wondering if we're jumping the gun a little bit on
> IUSE="gui".. yes it'll be nice to have one flag that "just works"
> for anyone not caring about the details, but it'll also mean
> propagating a slew of REQUIRED_USE=" {X,wayland,gtk,qt4,qt5}? ( gui
> )" entries and a lot of extra use-defaults which may or may not
> cleanup the sub-profiles of desktop/ ....
>
> Also, I believe we need to have the conversation about the pros and
> cons of IUSE=gui here before the council meeting, yes?
>
I already use IUSE=gui and will keep doing that.
USE flags in gentoo are the best and the worst thing at the same time.
They are also mostly the main reason people don't like gentoo, because
USE flags are (for todays situation) pretty much not an appropriate
pattern to reflect real-world configuration. To be more precise... USE
flags are first-class citizens and there is only one layer of them.
There's not configuration pattern/abstraction behind them. If you wonder
what I am talking about, have a look at NixOS. The reason we lack proper
declarative configuration is also the reason we had to introduce this
ugliness called REQUIRED_USE. Instead of saying "gui.gtk" we say
"REQUIRED_USE="gui? ( || ( gtk ... ) )". And it will get worse. I
wonder when people start realizing that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"
2015-09-11 20:34 ` hasufell
@ 2015-09-11 23:52 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-12 11:47 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2015-09-11 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/11/2015 01:34 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 08:03 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> So, IUSE="X" has generally been used for gui, but more
>> technically it's used to depend on and build against x11-libs/*
>> packages. The fact that this gives a GUI is practically a
>> side-effect. When wayland comes along, do these packages still
>> build against x11-libs/* to support wayland?
>>
>> I'm just wondering if we're jumping the gun a little bit on
>> IUSE="gui".. yes it'll be nice to have one flag that "just
>> works" for anyone not caring about the details, but it'll also
>> mean propagating a slew of REQUIRED_USE="
>> {X,wayland,gtk,qt4,qt5}? ( gui )" entries and a lot of extra
>> use-defaults which may or may not cleanup the sub-profiles of
>> desktop/ ....
>>
>> Also, I believe we need to have the conversation about the pros
>> and cons of IUSE=gui here before the council meeting, yes?
>>
>
>
> I already use IUSE=gui and will keep doing that.
>
> USE flags in gentoo are the best and the worst thing at the same
> time. They are also mostly the main reason people don't like
> gentoo, because USE flags are (for todays situation) pretty much
> not an appropriate pattern to reflect real-world configuration. To
> be more precise... USE flags are first-class citizens and there is
> only one layer of them. There's not configuration
> pattern/abstraction behind them. If you wonder what I am talking
> about, have a look at NixOS. The reason we lack proper declarative
> configuration is also the reason we had to introduce this ugliness
> called REQUIRED_USE. Instead of saying "gui.gtk" we say
> "REQUIRED_USE="gui? ( || ( gtk ... ) )". And it will get worse. I
> wonder when people start realizing that.
>
So are you suggesting maybe we come up with namespaced USE flags? That
would be interesting.
- --
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=jIAs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="gui"
2015-09-11 23:52 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2015-09-12 11:47 ` hasufell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hasufell @ 2015-09-12 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09/12/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 01:34 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> I already use IUSE=gui and will keep doing that.
>
>> USE flags in gentoo are the best and the worst thing at the same
>> time. They are also mostly the main reason people don't like
>> gentoo, because USE flags are (for todays situation) pretty much
>> not an appropriate pattern to reflect real-world configuration. To
>> be more precise... USE flags are first-class citizens and there is
>> only one layer of them. There's not configuration
>> pattern/abstraction behind them. If you wonder what I am talking
>> about, have a look at NixOS. The reason we lack proper declarative
>> configuration is also the reason we had to introduce this ugliness
>> called REQUIRED_USE. Instead of saying "gui.gtk" we say
>> "REQUIRED_USE="gui? ( || ( gtk ... ) )". And it will get worse. I
>> wonder when people start realizing that.
>
>
> So are you suggesting maybe we come up with namespaced USE flags? That
> would be interesting.
>
I'm not sure we can do that without breaking gentoo. At least, it would
be a _huge_ EAPI change.
It would require a lot of PM work, would break our configuration format
(if you want to do it properly) and probably have other side effects for
running systems.
And if you have followed NixOS development... you know that you can
screw this up as well, because consistency is even more important if you
really want declarative configuration. And I'm not sure there is enough
interest in consistency in gentoo. People seem to be fine with micro
managing USE flags in order to achieve a particular configuration state
which can break arbitrarily on any update.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-12 11:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-04-10 6:58 [gentoo-dev] About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles Pacho Ramos
2012-04-10 7:12 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2012-04-10 20:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-11 6:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2012-04-11 10:02 ` Samuli Suominen
2012-04-15 16:59 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-16 5:58 ` Ryan Hill
2012-04-16 8:38 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-04-16 8:11 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? (was: About how to handle wxGTK based packages with gnome profiles) Michał Górny
2012-04-16 8:22 ` [gentoo-dev] USE=gui? Samuli Suominen
2012-04-16 14:49 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-04-16 17:12 ` Michał Górny
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-09-09 7:20 [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
2015-09-09 7:24 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-09 10:37 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 6:21 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-10 8:47 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 18:15 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-10 18:21 ` hasufell
2015-09-10 18:26 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 9:03 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-11 12:13 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 17:11 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2015-09-11 17:41 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 18:03 ` [gentoo-dev] USE="gui" Ian Stakenvicius
2015-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-11 20:34 ` hasufell
2015-09-11 23:52 ` Daniel Campbell
2015-09-12 11:47 ` hasufell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox