[gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Aisha Tammy]

Hi all,
   As most of you might be (or not be) aware, GTK:2 has reached EOL in 
December 2020,
following the announcement of GTK:4.  We are now in the process of 
cleaning up
GTK:2 ebuilds and moving the packages to use GTK:3 and drop GTK:2 support.
In the coming days, bugs will be opened for all packages which are still 
using GTK:2.
We encourage all maintainers who get a bug to start the migration soon, 
to ensure a smooth
transition.
This transition is expected to take a long time so there shouldn't be a 
worry about sudden
changes in packages. We are going to keep some of the more important old 
GTK:2 ebuilds,
such as the CJK ebuilds, around as long as we have GTK:2 in the tree. 
Newer packages are
encouraged to be GTK:3 only.
The starting point of the transition are packages which have GTK:3 
support and optional GTK:2
support. Most of the bugs of this kind have already been filed[1] and is 
the safest
place to start killing off GTK:2.

Best,
Aisha

[1] https://blog.gtk.org/2020/12/16/gtk-4-0/
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/768993

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1343 bytes --]


> On 8 Feb 2021, at 00:52, Aisha Tammy <gentoo.dev@aisha.cc> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> [snip]
> This transition is expected to take a long time so there shouldn't be a worry about sudden
> changes in packages. We are going to keep some of the more important old GTK:2 ebuilds,
> such as the CJK ebuilds, around as long as we have GTK:2 in the tree. Newer packages are
> encouraged to be GTK:3 only.
> The starting point of the transition are packages which have GTK:3 support and optional GTK:2
> support. Most of the bugs of this kind have already been filed[1] and is the safest
> place to start killing off GTK:2.

This is completely fair, but I’d just like to add that dropping GTK 2 should ideally be done in revbumps
and given time before stabilisation & cleanup to ease the pain for users.

Yes, it’s been a long time coming, and this is only the first step, but some people have a sentimental
attachment to it, so we should give them time to get used to the new interfaces rather than yanking
it entirely from all versions in the tree where it’s possible.

TL;DR: Great, let’s just not rush to cleanup old so people can revert if issues arise with new designs
or whatever in the GUI.

> 
> Best,
> Aisha
> 
> [1] https://blog.gtk.org/2020/12/16/gtk-4-0/
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/768993
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Peter Stuge]

Aisha Tammy wrote:
> We are now in the process of cleaning up GTK:2 ebuilds and moving the
> packages to use GTK:3 and drop GTK:2 support.

Quoting the blog post you linked to: (thanks for including the link!)

"It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life. 
We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."


The recommendation in the blog post is for application developers to
port to 3 or 4, nothing more and nothing less.

What's the reasoning for this driving "killing off GTK:2" in Gentoo?

Are there (presently or foreseeable) technical issues with GTK:2?


Many thanks and kind regards

//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Peter Stuge]

Peter Stuge wrote:
> We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
> 
> 
> The recommendation in the blog post is for application developers to
> port to 3 or 4, nothing more and nothing less.

Correction: It /encourages/ porting to 3 or 4. It's not even a recommendation.


> What's the reasoning for this driving "killing off GTK:2" in Gentoo?
> 
> Are there (presently or foreseeable) technical issues with GTK:2?
> 
> 
> Many thanks and kind regards


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Hanno Böck]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:22:21 +0000
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life. 
> We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."

I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after that.

This seems to imply:
* When there's a security flaw in gtk2 there won't be a fix from
  upstream.
* When there's an incompatibility with new infrastructure (e.g. new gcc
  version / new glibc / changing API of libraries gtk depends on) there
  will be no updates from upstream.

This means in all those instances maintainers will have to get patches
from somewhere. We'll likely end up with some form of
gtk-2.x-r[largenumber] with a large patchset at some point.
Maintaining that will be an increasing burden.

No urgency, but a sign to slowly move off gtk2.

-- 
Hanno Böck
https://hboeck.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Peter Stuge]

Hanno Böck wrote:
> > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life. 
> > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
> 
> I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after that.
> 
> This seems to imply:
> * When there's a security flaw in gtk2 there won't be a fix from
>   upstream.
> * When there's an incompatibility with new infrastructure (e.g. new gcc
>   version / new glibc / changing API of libraries gtk depends on) there
>   will be no updates from upstream.
> 
> This means in all those instances maintainers will have to get patches
> from somewhere. We'll likely end up with some form of
> gtk-2.x-r[largenumber] with a large patchset at some point.
> Maintaining that will be an increasing burden.
> 
> No urgency, but a sign to slowly move off gtk2.

Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is
significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument)
no signs actually exist.

Assuming that there will be a significant maintenance burden which
affects all uses doesn't seem rational - hence my question.

The blog post shouldn't be misunderstood. The intended audience seems
to be application developers, encouraging them to port applications,
not so much distributions.

Distributions quite often overlook that they wield much power, and
thus also have much responsibility.

Of course, GTK maintainers in Gentoo choose what to work on, and have
made many (only?) excellent choices.

I'm merely pleading for rational choices based on actual problems.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[John Helmert III]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 02:59:45PM +0000, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life. 
> > > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
> > 
> > I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after that.
> > 
> > This seems to imply:
> > * When there's a security flaw in gtk2 there won't be a fix from
> >   upstream.
> > * When there's an incompatibility with new infrastructure (e.g. new gcc
> >   version / new glibc / changing API of libraries gtk depends on) there
> >   will be no updates from upstream.
> > 
> > This means in all those instances maintainers will have to get patches
> > from somewhere. We'll likely end up with some form of
> > gtk-2.x-r[largenumber] with a large patchset at some point.
> > Maintaining that will be an increasing burden.
> > 
> > No urgency, but a sign to slowly move off gtk2.
> 
> Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is
> significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument)
> no signs actually exist.

Waiting until such a problem pops up and bites everyone before doing
anything about it doesn't sound like a good way to handle it.

> 
> Assuming that there will be a significant maintenance burden which
> affects all uses doesn't seem rational - hence my question.
> 
> The blog post shouldn't be misunderstood. The intended audience seems
> to be application developers, encouraging them to port applications,
> not so much distributions.

If an application never ports, do you expect the distribution to
maintain that package ad infinitum?

> 
> Distributions quite often overlook that they wield much power, and
> thus also have much responsibility.
> 
> Of course, GTK maintainers in Gentoo choose what to work on, and have
> made many (only?) excellent choices.
> 
> I'm merely pleading for rational choices based on actual problems.
> 
> 
> //Peter
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:59 AM Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
>
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life.
> > > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage
> > > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4."
> >
> > I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after that.
> >
> > This seems to imply:
> > * When there's a security flaw in gtk2 there won't be a fix from
> >   upstream.
> > * When there's an incompatibility with new infrastructure (e.g. new gcc
> >   version / new glibc / changing API of libraries gtk depends on) there
> >   will be no updates from upstream.
> >
> > This means in all those instances maintainers will have to get patches
> > from somewhere. We'll likely end up with some form of
> > gtk-2.x-r[largenumber] with a large patchset at some point.
> > Maintaining that will be an increasing burden.
> >
> > No urgency, but a sign to slowly move off gtk2.
>
> Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is
> significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument)
> no signs actually exist.

So I think as the next post in the thread hints at:

 - I expect gtk2 (the library) to be around for a while. As written it
gets at least one more release.
 - I expect Gentoo to come after gtk2-only leaf packages pretty hard;
either to get upstream to port, or to remove them.
   - This is true even if the packages are fully functional with gtk2,
or don't have other bugs.
   - This is because we will eventually remove gtk2 from the tree
(which will make these packages unbuildable, and cause their removal.)

I'm less clear why we would keep libgtk2 in the tree for years and
years (just to keep nominally unmaintained gtk2 leaf packages
buildable?)

>
> Assuming that there will be a significant maintenance burden which
> affects all uses doesn't seem rational - hence my question.

I think you need to keep gtk2 (the library) for a fair bit (just like
we kept python2.7; the interpreter; for a fair while after its EOL.)

>
> The blog post shouldn't be misunderstood. The intended audience seems
> to be application developers, encouraging them to port applications,
> not so much distributions.
>
> Distributions quite often overlook that they wield much power, and
> thus also have much responsibility.
>
> Of course, GTK maintainers in Gentoo choose what to work on, and have
> made many (only?) excellent choices.
>
> I'm merely pleading for rational choices based on actual problems.
>
>
> //Peter
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] GTK:2 EOL and incoming migration to GTK:3

[Peter Stuge]

John Helmert III wrote:
> > Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is
> > significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument)
> > no signs actually exist.
> 
> Waiting until such a problem pops up and bites everyone before doing
> anything about it doesn't sound like a good way to handle it.

I guess that's a matter of opinion. But more importantly, "anything"
can mean a lot, and removing gtk2 is the ultimate sledgehammer.

Deciding to certainly use it at an unknown point in the future seems
unneccessary and premature to me.


> If an application never ports, do you expect the distribution to
> maintain that package ad infinitum?

As always it depends on the required effort.

When keeping the package requires little or no effort I *do* expect it
to not be removed solely because there will be no more releases, which
is really what was stated in the announcement, and why I piped up.


Alec Warner wrote:
>  - I expect gtk2 (the library) to be around for a while. As written it
> gets at least one more release.

Ack. My point isn't about immediate action, rather about what drives decisions.


>  - I expect Gentoo to come after gtk2-only leaf packages pretty hard;
> either to get upstream to port, or to remove them.
>    - This is true even if the packages are fully functional with gtk2,
> or don't have other bugs.
>    - This is because we will eventually remove gtk2 from the tree
> (which will make these packages unbuildable, and cause their removal.)

That's indeed what I'm trying to give more perspective to.

If there's in fact no other reason to "come after packages hard" and
"remove gtk2" than "no more releases" then I'm strongly against doing so.


> I'm less clear why we would keep libgtk2 in the tree for years and
> years (just to keep nominally unmaintained gtk2 leaf packages buildable?)

This assumes that "maintained" neccessarily means "will port from gtk2"
which I don't agree with at all.

There are many reasons to not port from gtk2 to something else. As long
as there are no concrete problems, especially if one knows the relevant
parts of gtk2 well and is convinced that they are free of issues, there
is in fact no reason *to* port from gtk2. Except if distributions create
one.

It's awfully unneccessary to do that without good reason.


> > Assuming that there will be a significant maintenance burden which
> > affects all uses doesn't seem rational - hence my question.
> 
> I think you need to keep gtk2 (the library) for a fair bit (just like
> we kept python2.7; the interpreter; for a fair while after its EOL.)

I'd argue that python2.7 should remain until demonstrably untenable,
ideally indefinitely.

At some point probably no longer within Gentoo's Python infrastructure -
but at a minimum as a trivial package.


//Peter