[gentoo-dev] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[gentoo-dev] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Doug Goldstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

So I know this one has been a sore spot and an annoyance and since I
don't feel like copying my blog post here I'm just going to link to it.
I have a solution, one that I know has been brought up before but I'm
willing to defend it and actually take action. Rather then just talk. So
let's agree upon this and make it happen. I'll change the entire tree
this weekend if we can agree that quick.

http://www.cardoe.com/archives/2005/08/26/gtk-use-flag-hell/

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:32:11 -0400 Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| So I know this one has been a sore spot and an annoyance and since I
| don't feel like copying my blog post here I'm just going to link to
| it. I have a solution, one that I know has been brought up before but
| I'm willing to defend it and actually take action. Rather then just
| talk. So let's agree upon this and make it happen. I'll change the
| entire tree this weekend if we can agree that quick.

You'll do revision bumps for every single affected package? If you
don't, things will break in a very confusing manner.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Dan Meltzer]

Hows the upgrade path RE: end-user useflag changes? Will everyone that
has gtk in their make.conf die a horrible death if they don't see the
upgrade notice? when will they see the upgrade notice?  Would it make
sense to leave the gtk flag for a while at least, to ease the end user
into an upgrade?

On 8/26/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:32:11 -0400 Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | So I know this one has been a sore spot and an annoyance and since I
> | don't feel like copying my blog post here I'm just going to link to
> | it. I have a solution, one that I know has been brought up before but
> | I'm willing to defend it and actually take action. Rather then just
> | talk. So let's agree upon this and make it happen. I'll change the
> | entire tree this weekend if we can agree that quick.
> 
> You'll do revision bumps for every single affected package? If you
> don't, things will break in a very confusing manner.
> 
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
> 
> 
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Hows the upgrade path RE: end-user useflag changes? Will everyone that
> has gtk in their make.conf die a horrible death if they don't see the
> upgrade notice? when will they see the upgrade notice?  Would it make
> sense to leave the gtk flag for a while at least, to ease the end user
> into an upgrade?
Not saying it's a clean idea, but aside from making a lot of noise 
about the change over (which should be delayed till that noise has 
been made), a base/profile.bashrc trick of substituting gtk in when 
gtk1 is detected would work.

Hell, it should even allow the migration to be done piecemeal.

Haven't tried it mind you, but don't see any reason it shouldn't work, 
aside from it being rather evil imo.
~harring

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Petteri Räty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Doug Goldstein wrote:

> So I know this one has been a sore spot and an annoyance and since
> I don't feel like copying my blog post here I'm just going to link
> to it. I have a solution, one that I know has been brought up
> before but I'm willing to defend it and actually take action.
> Rather then just talk. So let's agree upon this and make it happen.
> I'll change the entire tree this weekend if we can agree that
> quick.
>
> http://www.cardoe.com/archives/2005/08/26/gtk-use-flag-hell/
>

I like what you are saying.  I too have always found the current setup
very confusing.

Regards,
Petteri Räty
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDD3WycxLzpIGCsLQRAmmjAKCAG6Blacv4TVhly1gBlCjzEXirAgCfTQMW
rlpwGV5Zn3rMFuLwJnYGNKA=
=aFxs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1251 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 07:58:05AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On 08/26/05  Brian Harring wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > Hows the upgrade path RE: end-user useflag changes? Will everyone
> > > that has gtk in their make.conf die a horrible death if they don't
> > > see the upgrade notice? when will they see the upgrade notice? 
> > > Would it make sense to leave the gtk flag for a while at least, to
> > > ease the end user into an upgrade?
> > Not saying it's a clean idea, but aside from making a lot of noise 
> > about the change over (which should be delayed till that noise has 
> > been made), a base/profile.bashrc trick of substituting gtk in when 
> > gtk1 is detected would work.
> 
> Hell no. Don't need to add more confusion to the use flag confusion.
Instead, confuse the hell out of users who don't religiously follow 
-dev/-user/-gwn, and suddenly get bit by the gtk flag losing it's 
meaning?

That said, it won't work anyways; the aliasing has to occur within the 
python side else it'll screw up the depgraph (realized that just a few 
seconds ago) :)

So... back to making a lot of noise, or some python side support for 
aliasing use flags.
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Marcin 'aye' Kryczek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1256 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 02:53:10AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > 
> > Hell no. Don't need to add more confusion to the use flag confusion.
> Instead, confuse the hell out of users who don't religiously follow 
> -dev/-user/-gwn, and suddenly get bit by the gtk flag losing it's 
> meaning?
> 
i like doug's idea. gtk/gtk2 have a bit obsolete meaning. i bet there're
plenty of users, who would like gtk2, but not gtk1 aplication on their
systems. i don't think that leaving worse solution instead of making
changes just becouse it's easier is good policy.
about confusion: what about leaving 'gtk' flag for some time and make it
the same meaning as 'gtk1'. additionaly - each ebuild, which make use of
this flag could print some information, that it's obsolete and will be
removed in near future


-- 
                              ~        ~~  ~   ~~~  ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
Marcin 'aye' Kryczek ,.,.,.,., mail: aye%gentoo.pl .,.,. RLU: #316599 .,. /
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., jid: aye%gentoo.pl ,., PGP: 0xD6CFCCF1 .,. /  
Key fingerprint = EE8F E832 54E4 2456 C582 5B32 E10F EEDC D6CF CCF1 .,. /
                                        ~         ~~  ~   ~~~  ~~~~~.,_/
                                                  


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Marius Mauch]

On 08/26/05  Brian Harring wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Hows the upgrade path RE: end-user useflag changes? Will everyone
> > that has gtk in their make.conf die a horrible death if they don't
> > see the upgrade notice? when will they see the upgrade notice? 
> > Would it make sense to leave the gtk flag for a while at least, to
> > ease the end user into an upgrade?
> Not saying it's a clean idea, but aside from making a lot of noise 
> about the change over (which should be delayed till that noise has 
> been made), a base/profile.bashrc trick of substituting gtk in when 
> gtk1 is detected would work.

Hell no. Don't need to add more confusion to the use flag confusion.

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.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] gtk/gtk2 USE flag annoyances

[Marius Mauch]

On 08/29/05  Brian Harring wrote:

> That said, it won't work anyways; the aliasing has to occur within the
> python side else it'll screw up the depgraph (realized that just a few
> 
> seconds ago) :)
> 
> So... back to making a lot of noise, or some python side support for 
> aliasing use flags.
> ~harring

Adding "Global Update" support similar to package moves? Has the benefit
of people becoming aware of the change.

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.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list